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.

eaaeaa - 09:46pm Jul 9, 2000 EST (#166 of 11858)

sdinutts, #159:

You make some very good points here. Here's the trouble, though, in a few words. First, you are absolutely right. The Persian Gulf War was the first war between a so-called "Rogue State" with chemical, biological, and proto-nuclear capability, and nuclear states (i.e., the U.S. and its allies). This war showed that yes, deterrence does work, and two, that "anti-missiles", i.e., the Patriot version, are ineffective in actual battle conditions. So you're right so far.

But the problem that NMD fans harp on is that, someday, somewhere, deterrence may not work. But they assume, incorrectly, that the only answer if that happens is to have overwhelming defense + offense.

That is the real "pie in the sky" -- first, no offense or defense - can give a 100% guarantee, and second, once you build a defense, everyone thinks you will use this for a first-strike advantage, so, bingo, we're off to a $100 billion, or $500 billion arms race.

The only real alternative to this dangerous and not-well-thought-out scenario, is to provide the only "technically-feasible" solution, and to think the unthinkable.

"Thinking the unthinkable" today is not what it was in Herman Kahn's day. Indeed, it is the opposite. The unthinkable today, and the only 100% guarantee of avoiding a nutty, unplanned, planned, or accidental nuclear war, is to abolish these weapons. If you think about it, unless you do that, there will also be a marginal chance of failure. That margin of error increases (and here I'll propose a formula), b roughly as the square of the number of nuclear states.

In other words: When we had two nuclear-capable states, the US and the Soviets, it was pretty simple. You start a dialogue. You keep them talking. You don't give ground, but you make sure they are safe; then they don't attack you. We did this successfully in Europe.

When we had four nuclear states, including China, the chances went from 2-squared= 4/x, to 4-squared, or 16/x; today, we have at least 8, if you count the First 5, and you add in Pakistan, Israel, and India. The odds now mount to 8x8, or 64 chances out of X. (X is unknowable, because there are variables of competency, reliability of the arsenal, safety, etc.) But the fact remains: It is common sense that the more bombs, in more hands, you have loose in the world, the greater the chances that, someday, one of more of these bombs, or one or more of these hands, will slip, and we'll have a nuclear catastrophe.

I have never been able to find an advocate for nukes, or Star Wars "solutions", who can show me why the above is not true. If it is true, then neither deterrence, nor star Wars will always work. Thus, the only solution is abolition.

This solution will not be easy: Abolition of evil is never easy, as slavery and the Civil War showed. But we can abolish our enslavement to nuclear madness voluntarily, as many countries abolished slavery voluntarily, without war, or you can wait for a Civil War, which in this case might not leave much to abolish.

I am somewhat oversimplifying, but I hope you will examine: How will deterrence work when Star Wars happens, which you seem to think it will, judging by your Truman remark? How will deterrence work when this development undermines all our treaties, and up to 44 countries (the number with research reactors) conclude that all bets are off, and develop a nuclear-free-for-all? Wouldn't "nuclear-free" be far better than "free-for-all"?

As for Becky and speed, would you give a gun to a child? I assume not. Well, the more weapons we have, the more others are tempted to arm. The more that are armed, the greater, not lesser, the chance that someday, a Dr. Strangelove will happen, or a nuke will be smuggled on a ship, or fired from a ship under the radar. Keep in mind, even if Star Wars worked (and we are actually z

tuffy924 - 01:41am Jul 10, 2000 EST (#167 of 11858)

Kill the damn thing! It was a flawed vision from the beginning, and now we know it doesn't work. Shooting a bullet with another bullet -preposterous! There are too many stages involved in this anti-missle defense: detection of an attack, calculation of trajectory and velocity of the incoming missile, launch of an interceptor (made up of multiple stages that all have to work perfectly), inflight adjustments to hone in on a precise point in space and time, differentiation between decoys and the real missile, then hoping all the shaking hasn't destroyed the interceptor's ability to destroy its target. Completely ridiculous! Besides, which, it doesn't do anything to protect against terrorists smuggling in a weapon or an enemy attack involving hundreds of missiles. Thank goodness it didn't work - I feel $60 billion richer already!

evenbetta - 02:18pm Jul 10, 2000 EST (#168 of 11858)

evenbetta - 10:01am Jul 10, 2000 EDT (#168 of 168)

eaaeaa - 09:46pm Jul 9, 2000 EDT (#166 of 167)

two notes:

first as I indicated and as the CIA indicates and as the rational actor models indicate

the use of 'rouge states' in underlying the need for NMD has not merit-all that matters is the rational actor model. Thus why the GOP and current administration dropped the model within the last two months.

second. Technology cannot be locked down. You cannot put nuclear weapons back in a bottle. I would rather live in an enviroment in which nuclear weapons did exist then pretend they do not. I advocate Kenneth Waltz on this one-neorealism-every position on that concept I believe thrust at your perspective. The critical difference between my realist approach on nuclear weapons is that nuclear weapons will exist until another weapon comes along that makes them absolete.Then people will want to run around trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons-just as they tried to rid the world of chemical weapons-----hasn't worked has it. Some would argue my position is contrary to my position on Nuclear Utilization Theory (NUTS-or the actual platform of NMD). It is not-my position is also realist in that sense as well. Being the largest holder of nuclear devices on this planet-I am aware that my decision to either employ or reject Nuclear Utilization Theory will rebound all over the world in how other nations consider a reaction. Nations despite what people on this board may think-are actually linked when in consideration of defense policy. All nations are in reaction to another. What you consider a offensive policy is actually a defensive position based on the perception of something else.One need only look at Americas current ambitions to see how its administration defines itself as 'defensive' and the world at large calls back 'offensive'. The system is offensive while being defensive-it is both. The United States being the largest nuclear power like it or not is the pinball that will bounce off every nations view of what it should do in regards to nuclear policy. If the British were the largest holder of nuclear power it fall to them-if India to them-if China to them if Pakistan to them If Russia to them. Russia has taken a position that places Nuclear Utilization onto the back burner-and makes the world not have to reroute its view of rational actions. Americas tends to make each slap of the offensive/defensive position

a constant Tilt.

(11690 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense