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.

palousereader - 08:55am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#207 of 11863)

"U.S. Missile Plan Could Reportedly Provoke China". I had to doublecheck the date on this story- reads like a repeat of various articles over the past weeks. As the article says,

"Although the report reaffirms what China and Russia have publicly said in opposition to the system..."

Any new "detailed analysis" of likely responses has probably already been played out in this and other forums.

To me, the least persuasive argument is that this will change the balance of power. The acquisition of nuclear technology by more and more small nations is doing that already. It's one thing to nuke a bully of equal size if/when they attack us; it's a different thing to nuke a tiny nation whose citizens are probably unaware and unable to stop their government's aggression. We can barely defend economic sanctions against those governments now- how difficult will it be to justify annihilation- to ourselves or the world.

The best argument is the Maginot Line idea (above-richr11b) that any defense will be eventually overrun with better offensive technology. True, but as I've said before, if a shared system can put things on hold for even 100 years, maybe we'll come to our senses by then. And in a sense, our nuclear arsenal is itself defensive- a defense of retaliatory threat; it is now in the process of being rendered obsolete- we have to change, move on. Total disarmament would be the ideal- but a shared development/deployment of a workable shield technolgy by all nations would, at least temporarily, achieve that same result. The way we're doing it now, unilaterally and with a technology that seems ill conceived and so far unworkable..is not going to do anything but continue inflammatory rhetoric and engender fear.

vic.hernandez - 09:53am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#208 of 11863)

patndmmac #199 & #200 richrllb #206

1) At least you moved a little off dead center. A Ballistic Missle Defence (BMD)does not promote nuclear war. It increases the uncertainty factor for any attack scenario. If you don't have any too many, and you are uncertain of success, you don't use.

2) A Balance of Power is just that. It is not a static situation. Movement about the balance point, movement that may be caused by a third party that is not under the control of the major participants, changes the balance. We are in a dance that doesn't end and we do not have control over the waltz selection.

3) Atmosphere of Fear. What do we have now? For the first time in the history of man, real death may rain down from the skies at any time, unopposed. A BMD would at least provide a chance that we don't have now. Let's make uncertainty of success and ally.

4) Damage to the Ecosphere. Given. But then fear of such damage didn't stop Mr. Hussein of Iraq from making one hell of a mess in his own backyard. Nobody wants it, but it is a direct result of use. The question is not if it will result from a full fledge nuclear exchange, but how do we prevent the exchange?

5) Your idea that nations are not suicidal is probably correct. But they do miscalculate the reactions of others. Your example of Korea is quite apropos. The leadership of N. Korea thought that they could take over the South in 1950. They acted. The end result being the Korean War. Neither us or the Soviet Union had numerous wepons or the means to deliver them reliably. If this war were to have started in 1960, when there were more lethal means of destruction, would it have ended as it did?

6) Predators and barbarians. What do you want to call them? What is the politically correct name for them? Shall we call them "Really aggressive people or persons whom we cannot get along with"? This is not about name calling, this is about the life and death of millions of people.

7) Maginot Line. War is about defence and offense. Yes the Maginot Line was flanked. What you don't mention is that a decision was made that gentlemen do not defend against allies. As a result the line was not completed to the sea. Also, there were some assaults made against the line, they weren't successful. In fact, some sections of the line had to be seiged out. While total defence may not win a war, a good defence can buy the time needed to position yourself to win.

8) Speedbird77 in #205 is correct. Anyone trying to build to overcome the BMD would have to make some serious decisions. Just declaring an intent would not do. They would have to execute.

beckq - 10:24am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#209 of 11863)

vic.hernandez - 09:53am Aug 10, 2000 EDT (#208 of 208)

Listen Killroy your way off.

beckq - 11:09am Aug 10, 2000 EST (#210 of 11863)

Why are you off?

Welp way I and others see it-America is attempting to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to sit around the world with all the nuclear weapons it can muster sitting in silos on planes and in ships, and the very thing that has prevented America and other nations from ever useing these overpriced male peckers is that if you use them-you without question WILL die. Think I'm wrong-consider why America signed that SALT I treaty and the protocols. It signed it to lower the chance that one side would attempt to consider ways to increase a survival rate. They knew-that if they did not maintain provisions that survival a 'no-no' then both would attempt to survive.

Your country will no longer exist the way you knew it prior. I heard another person call it national survival-the survival of your country is understood to be destroyed if you use nuclear weapons.

Now-America wants to take that very instrument-that assurance that America and the rest of the world has used to maintain that WMD are not used by other countrys-and it wants to-flush it down the craper. Why because everybody is worried about the crazy monsters they helped finance and build during the ideological pecker war with the Soviets. And now-now we can't have monsters anymore-and so we think we can just build a shield and they will stay out of the courtyard. Who says they have to fly into the courtyard to begin with? and kla-bloom-all your billions in money-money that can be utilized to provide better education-better healthcare-better quality of life is all wasted. And-you instituted an arms race with all the normal countrys you have been dealing with since day #1 because your 'defensive' shield-adds chance to a game that only worked when no chance existed Thats why nobody played.

wangzho1 - 12:10pm Aug 10, 2000 EST (#211 of 11863)
wang zhong(ŸŠ’†)

NMD will dies naturally.

(11652 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense