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
(140 previous messages)
- 09:56am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#141
the right question.
'"It's so easy to write (as I have) that North Korea will
threaten America with a single strike if they fail to remove
American forces from the DMZ'
this above one is a favorite among the advocates of NMD.
but think about it Country A, threatens country B with a single
strike that will allow the state to live on-but with massive loss of
life to a region.All country A wants is country B to leave ZONE A.
So-being the realists Country A and B are-they sit back exchange
smirks and finallly Country B realises something that Country A in
(REAL LIFE WOULD NEVER FORGET AND THEREFORE WOULD NEVER EVEN
THREATEN COUNTRY B) but hey-it would appear supports of NMD like
fantasy so play a long
Country B- comes to the realization
they turn on their space monitor-like in Star Trek(thats what
this is all about)
and they sit back and Kirk goes
'Khan-we agree-we will leave ZOME A'
-Khan the leader of Country A-is quite content-and he watches as
this big country A backs out of ZONE A and leaves.
darkness falls-and all the world is abuzz about how Country A
kicked out Country B out of Zone A with a threat.
Khan talks about national unity and how the survival of the state
made him decide that he wanted Zone A.
everone is perplexed.Counrys around the globe start wondering
'ummmm I wonder if I can threaten country B.'
But then-while everyone is doing nothing. Country B does
something in one MASSIVE SWIFT BLOW
Country B STOMPS out Country A.Obliverated off the face of the
map. The entire ESSENCE OF WHAT COUNTRY A STOOD UP FOR AND
WANTED-NATIONAL SURVIVAL-IS GONE-THE STATE NO LONGER EXISTS.
- 10:53am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#142
palousereader, you aren't the only NYT reader in favor of a NMD.
It makes sense. It may not be perfect, but like anti-aircraft
defenses, they will improve over time.
The primary objection to even trying is that any system we deploy
now won't be perfect. That is there won't be 100% assurance that
every shot will hit a warhead. That something will get through.
Therefore, since we can't have perfect protection, we won't have
any. Since seatbelts and airbags wont't protect me against all
injury in all crashes, I won't have them. The fact that within the
parameters of their design they do provide substantial protection is
immaterial, no perfect protection available, none will be obtained.
I dare say, if we use grodh2 and evanbetta's arguments in
everyday life, that we would never do anything as simple as develop
a spreadsheet model. Since we counldn't test against known
parameters and known outcomes, we wouldn't know if the outcomes were
valid. Things don't spring up full blown. They are developed, and
tested, and improved continuosly.
The history of warfare has been one of continuous changing from
advantage defense to advantage offense. The cycle has been repeated
over the last 5,000 years of conflict. Why is it no longer so now?
Because we wish it so? Not likely. This subject is too important for
decisions to be made based on emotion.
With more and more countries developing nuclear weapons and ICBM
technology, it seems to me that by creating and continually
improving a defensive shield that some of the impetus for these
countries to develop such things is removed. Why spend resources on
a system that won't be useful because there already exists a
counter. Remember, $60 billion to us over a 10 year period is a
different hurt than even $1 billion to most other economies. Is this
an opportunity to pull the predeator's fangs prior to this using
them? In fact, is this an opportunity to prevent the preadator from
- 10:55am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#143
If I were a rogue state, I'd put my bomb in a rowboat, cover it
with walleyes and smuggle it in from Canada.
- 11:06am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#144
"The primary objection to even trying is that any system we
deploy now won't be perfect."
No-the primary objection to even trying is that it provides a
chance-where no chance existed before-it increases the utilization
of nuclear weapons.Thus you actually LOWER your protection rather
then INCREASE it by the building of this system.
I have not a doubt in my mind that if one pumps enough tax
dollars into this dog-you will get him to bark.Trouble is-it does
- 11:09am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#145
You do not understand the very reason why WMD have not been used
since 1945. You design a 'shield' you INCREASE the chance that
nuclear devices aer used.
- 01:23pm Jul 7, 2000 EST (#146
edjohengen - 03:42pm Jun 6, 2000 EDT (#28 of 145)
Missile defense is not a threat to the Russians
and Chinese, it is a threat to their ability to destroy us!!!
Not necessarily. While the missile defence system is not a threat
to Russia or China in itself, it is a serious threat in combination
with the rest of the nuclear arsenal. If and when successfully
implemented, the defence system would allow NATO to selectively
target anyone they want with impunity. And with the NATO's current
track record, this doesn't seem so unthinkable. Until now, Russia
and the US were merely stepping on each other's toes. The threat of
mutual annihilation had at least prevented an all-out war.
(11712 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science