[F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (218 previous messages)

ypgc717 - 04:54am Aug 22, 2000 EST (#219 of 11863)

Where do you think the profits from the War on Drugs are going (by I mean the institutional-sized payoffs to the DEA/CIA)? We may already have a functioning Star Wars/brilliant pebbles system and this is all misinformation to allow us to get the thing fully deployed while the world debates a McGuffin.

I tend to give the military less credit for candor and more credit for competence than I think the general public does. Who knows - maybe we have weak nuclear force suppression effects generators rigged up in our major cities so a bomb can't go off... we may have a lot of classified physics in our vast research establishment...

But then again maybe not.

beckq - 11:54am Aug 22, 2000 EST (#220 of 11863)

vic.hernandez - 07:34pm Aug 10, 2000 EDT (#213 of 219) 1) SALT 1 was not about preserving a mutual suicide pact,

  • Incorrect. Provide support for your positions pal. SALT I attempted to maintain nuclear deterrence between the two nations. The treaty itself, its writers even its critics all support my position regarding SALT I. That SALT I and the ABM protocols were designed to strengthen deterrence for both parties. That is why MIRVS were a focus and that is why ABM were a focus. Both technological developments erode nuclear deterrence between the two.

    beckq - 11:56am Aug 22, 2000 EST (#221 of 11863)


  • tackle that point and I will gfo after the rest of the trash you posted.

    vic.hernandez - 10:16am Aug 25, 2000 EST (#222 of 11863)

    beckq #220 & #221

    SALT 1 was about preserving a mutual suicide pact. What do you think the MAD Doctrine was about? It was an agreement that if you pull the trigger and try to kill me, no matter what you do, you will be signing your own death warrant. If that isn't a mutual suicide pact, what is?

    You say "The treaty itself, its writers even its critics all support my position regarding SALT 1." Please tell me where? Please tell me where I can read this? I found a copy of the treaty. (http:/www/ Nowhere in it or in the memorandums of understanding that were signed after it does the words Multuple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) appear. The treaty was about limiting the number of launchers, their modernization and types. If that isn't an attempt to limit the cost of the arms race, what is? Just because you say the experts support your position doesn't make it so. Please provide quotes and where they can be found for verification.

    By the way, the Soviet hierarchy was not convinced or at least did not totally believe in the MAD concept. They developed and deployed an ABM system around Moscow and threatened to further deploy the system. MIRVs were our response to the Soviet deployment. It was less expensive to MIRV the missles we had than to deploy more.

    As to your argument that both technologies "erode nuclear deterence between the two." You can't have it both ways. In the MAD scenario, if more weapons aimed at a potential adversary erodes deterence, then having a defence doesn't. If having a defence against that adversary erodes deterence, then pointing more weapons at him doesn't. Which is it?

    So, there is my response to your posting. Please feel free to "go after the rest of the trash."

    beckq - 09:45am Aug 28, 2000 EST (#223 of 11863)

    Note the switch in your opinions after I brought it to your attention

  • VIC.HERNANDEZ 7:34 Aug 10th A"1) SALT 1 was NOT about preserving a mutual suicide pact, it was about reducing the expense of the Nuclear Arms Race going on at the time."

  • vic.hernandez - 10:16am Aug 25, 2000 EDT (#222 of 222)

  • "SALT 1 was about preserving a mutual suicide pact. What do you think the MAD Doctrine was about?"



    beckq - 10:41am Aug 28, 2000 EST (#224 of 11863)

    oh by the way.

    MAD is NOT a doctrine. It is a principle view of nuclear deterrence. Its evolution came into being due to the insecurity of the Soviets and Americans. The race of insecurity. The arms race.

    What SALT I did was aknowledge this view of deterrence as being the principle reason why neither side conducted nuclear warfare on the other. SALT I attempted to provide ways to solidify and strengthen this view (MAD) of nuclear deterrence.

    Vic.You are not prepared to discuss this. You already contradicted yourself once. You need to be aware that some people who visit this forum may actually study this material for a living.

    kalter.rauch - 03:15am Aug 29, 2000 EST (#225 of 11863)
    Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

    Vait a minute, beckq......look closely at ze names......



    Vhy ?!?!?

    Von of zem may be ze zought kriminal!!!

    More Messages Recent Messages (11638 following messages)

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
     Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company