![[F]](../_images/site.gif) 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
Thursday.
 
  (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)
vic.hernandez
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/fas.org.nuke/control/salt1/) 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?"
YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF MY FRIEND
THANKS FOR PLAYING.
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......
VIC
\/1C
Vhy ?!?!?
Von of zem may be ze zought kriminal!!!
(11638 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
