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.

vic.hernandez - 10:32pm Aug 29, 2000 EST (#226 of 11863)

beckq Re: Your postings #s 212, 220, 223 and 224.

If you had taken the time to read and comprehend the whole of my #222 posting you would have understood my argument. The primary thrust of the SALT 1 Agreement was an attempt to limit the cost of the nuclear arms race. Remember, the two signatories were spending the then fabulous sum of $50,000,000.00 a day on just the nuclear component of the arms race. To that sum you have to add the conventional arms race, the space race, the diplomatic influence race, and lets not forget the Viet Nam War. All that spending did not leave much for the bread and butter race at home. Not good for the politicians.

As to MAD being a view instead of a doctrine, I refer you to the American Heritage Dictionary. It defines doctrine as "a statement of official government policy, esp. in foreign affairs." Perhaps you would prefer another definition, "a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a political, scientific, or philosophical group; dogma." A third definition is "a rule or principle of law, esp. when established by precedent." Which are you? Dogmatic? Doctrinaire? Or are you just a lawyer?

When you have finished reading this, perhaps you will re-read your posting #220. I refer you to your challenge to me to provide support for my position. I have done so by referring you to the SALT 1 Agreement itself. I know facts get in the way of a good story, but isn't about time for you to provide some in support of your vitriol? Don't forget to post the source and location. As one of our Presidents said,"Trust. But verify!"

As for my preparedness to discuss this issue I refer you to your posting #212. Do you really believe that is a serious synopsis of the history of NMD? Or were you just waning eloquent?

Oh, by the way - I do appreciate the implication in the last couple of sentences of #224 that you are one of the few, one of the proud, one of the select. Do you actually study the issue of NMD for a living? Perhaps you can step from behind the pseudonym of beckq and provide us with your CV. You may even gain some credebility.

speedbird77 - 06:38am Aug 30, 2000 EST (#227 of 11863)
†† Osama bin runnin ††

Just to weigh in on the subject, the SALT One treaty limited the INCREASE in weaponry. Both sides were permitted to modernize certain categories of weaponry and even increase others. The SALT process put a ceiling on numbers while allowing both sides to continue to deploy thousands of hydrogen warheads. The argument being that a final number while higher was better than no ceilings at all. The SALT process argued some allowed both sides to "build up" to specified ceilings that were still way too high in number. The latest treaty being tossed about actually CUTS numbers and categories. For instance, neither side will be permitted to deploy MIRV'd land based missiles which will force both the US and Russia to decommission hundreds of land based missiles. The Russians have already begun this process under the Nunn Lugar threat reduction program being paid for by the US Defense Dept. They are scrapping the most feared submarine ever designed (Typhoon) and the ICBM that kept pentagon generals awake at night the SS-18. Now is the time to lock the Russians into an agreement with extremely low numbers because of their financial situation but the pentagon is hedging. They claim that to meet their US and worldwide committments, going below the 3000 warhead block would be extremely painful. However, I believe that both sides can maintain a high level of security with 2000 warheads each. We shall see.

(11636 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense