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.

patndmac - 02:40am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#199 of 11863)

Missile defense does promote nuclear war, or at least nuclear arms production. It promotes it by upsetting the balance of power that exists between countries with such weapons. If the United States has a defense system, it can attack with impunity. No one will blow us up while we blow them up. While you and I may think this would never happen, that the US would never take so offensive an action, we would be naive. We would not be taking our own history into account (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). And even if we were to know for sure that we would never initiate a nuclear war, other countries definitely won't know that and won't believe that. It creates an atmosphere of fear and provokes other countries to create greater weapons of destruction.

Now, while this shift in power may appear beneficial when viewed from a selfish American viewpoint, this too is false. The ramifications of nuclear war do not end when the explosions cease and the shock waves peter out. Whole ecosystems would be destroyed. Large amounts of dust and soil would be spewed into the atmosphere. Our lives would be made extremely difficult, if not impossible to survive.

I stand by my statement that the answer is disarmament. That is the only answer that does not lead to massive suffering and potential extinction. And I do believe that people are sensible enough to make it happen. No countries are suicidal, not even North Korea.

patndmac - 02:49am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#200 of 11863)

And it alarms me how some of you refer to the rest of the world as "predators" and "barbarians". They are people just like you and me. Excluding and dehumanizing people makes them the enemy. You are making them the enemy. As soon as you realize people are people everywhere, and don't turn into goblins in China and vampires in Vietnam, you realize that our true interests are the interests of the world, rather than narrow nationalism.

joedaddy0 - 02:53am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#201 of 11863)

Disarmament would be a great utopian idea, but with the world we live in today and some of the dictators that run it, disarmament is not only impossible, but implausable. If a major country like the united states or britain "set the example", that could easily set the spark that leaders like sadamm are lookin for to seek their "revenge and justice" on their enemies from the west. Disarmament, no, that is not the answer, regulation and reduced defense spending, maybe, but disarmament, would not lead to peace, but rather further allow the the bullies of eastern societies more opportunity to prey weaker peoples, and more opportunity for terrorism here, at home, in america.

tim1956 - 04:09am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#202 of 11863)

Beware the military/industrial complex. $60 billion will buy a lot of mansions and pay for a lot of private schools for the executives at Boeing and Lockheed Martin. It could be used to help people. So it goes. Both Bush and Gore are behind this scheme. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

jhansv - 06:36am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#203 of 11863)

The urgent need for a WORKABLE anti-missile defense system can be summarized as follows: 1. Capability to shoot down hostile missiles. 2. Capability to develop a potential hostile asteroid removal system 3. Capability to remove the incredible space junk yard the world has developed over the last ten years.

speedbird77 - 06:54am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#204 of 11863)
†† Osama bin runnin ††

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 -- A highly classified intelligence report warns that deploying an American national missile defense could prompt China to expand its nuclear arsenal tenfold and lead Russia to place multiple warheads on ballistic missiles that now carry only one, according to officials who have reviewed it.

Is it any wonder why no one takes the National Intelligence Estimate seriously. Just last month the NY Times claimed the NIE was overblown and now today they tell us to take it seriously?

speedbird77 - 07:43am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#205 of 11863)
†† Osama bin runnin ††

Do they have ANY idea what a ten fold increase would entail? If China started today, a ten fold increase would eat their entire budget, they would need to scrap the many non military projects they have planned for the country and the cost of maintaining a ten fold increase in their arsenal would cost them tens of billions of dollars per year which they do not have. Not to mention the timeline involved in designing, testing and deploying a ten fold increase in warheads.

I wish the Times and others would seriously think this through before they print such wild headlines.

richr11b - 08:20am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#206 of 11863)

I am all for a strong military, and I think that our forces should be made stronger and better and more numerous. But this missile defense idea is not a good one for 2 reasons, neither having to do with the reactions of China et al.

1. It does't work. Starting construction for a system which has not yet shown feasibility (which will have to be redone later) is wasted money. Now the Air Force says that the basic booster will have to be redesigned to allow the kill vehicle to properly track the incoming warhead. This was something we thought we had in hand. Small miscalculation. The new technology has yet to be fully dealt with. A better plan would be to make it actually kill a warhead before spending billions.

2. It is a defensive weapon. All war theoriticians from Sun-Tzu to Mahan have held that offensive capabilities will evolve faster to negate any defensive technology that a state might develop. Defensive technology has always been short lived. The Maginot line was quickly flanked. Our missile defense will quickly be circumvented by better decoys, different delivery systems, or different sets of alliances.

A stronger Navy, Army, and Air Force with the ability to show our flag and back up policies is a much wiser way to spend these $60 billion. (Which is likely to double, or worse, given the low-ball budgets which high-tech types always give out.)

(11657 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense