Missile Defense

beckq - 11:03am Sep 5, 2000 EST (#244 of 11863)

In #196 you state that building a NMD system "promotes the use of nuclear power." As the world moves to more nations with nuclear capability, please explain how. War bad, peace good argument will not work.

Actually I like 'Napster Bad, Beer Good' but hey whatever floats your boat.

A system of defense that adds 'chance' of survival to a game in which no 'chance' existed before decreases the crossover thresholds of conventional warfare going into nuclear warfare. You are adding 'chance' to a system for which the only reason the game has not been played is because no chance existed prior. Add chance and you make the game worth the risk to play.Thus why such weapons systems even defensive in nature fall under the vision of 'nuclear utilization theory' or NUTS (chuckle)

beckq - 11:04am Sep 5, 2000 EST (#245 of 11863)

- In #224 and again in #229 you imply that you make a living studying this issue. How about steping out from behind the anonimity of "beckq" and providing a copy of your CV. If you want to claim special expertise, prove you have it. Vic,

I provided answers to the questions asked. I provided you a detailed explanation and references for you to examine on your own in your early attempts to question my perspective. That is all my view is of course. A perspective. Others may exist. I like the one provided to you. I support that perspective with ample background and and rather compelling perspective. You however have yet to do that with yours. Thus I find your perspective both weak and factual incorrect for the reasons I so stated. . I find your immediate admission that you contradicted yourself in your initial posts an end to this argument. Your attempt to personalize this issue by requesting a ‘resume’ does nothing for the context of this debate. If you are upset that someone else knew of the material presented and had enough confidence to indicate that they are in touch with it more then you are that’s your problem. The argument and debate style demonstrate someone efficiency on the matter far more then my or anybody else’s resume. In addition due to your already established pattern of contradicting yourself in posts it would be an exercise in futility to continue any type of discourse with you. All of your questions relevant to this subject have been adequately answered. You just need to take the time to further explore the keys of power, of knowledge provided you.

neilgiuntoli1 - 11:51pm Sep 5, 2000 EST (#246 of 11863)

Its the wrong system thats proposed...'kinetic kill'..bullet hitting bullet BMD. Unworkable, easily countermeasured, and our defense delivery points are wrong. All BMD assets with the exception of command and control, should be in orbit, in varying layers. Now those who are against BMD, are you against the current unworkable configuration, or just against the concept of BMD in general?I understand perfectly well the destabilization argument, or the 'we should put our money elsewhere' argument. My question is, painted against a backdrop of many nations having long range BM capabilities, what CHOICE do we have, when considering NATIONAL defense? At the present, I have very little confidence in the restraint and accountability of the national command structure in Russia, it makes one long for the 'bad old days' of MAD. The main military threat, long term, I see, coming from China, is more geared towards 'asymetrical' warfare, i.e. a cyber attack, rather than a blunt ballistic sword. The Iranians, at this time, have thermonuclear weaponry, obviously not of indigineous design, but purchased Soviet weaponry, and are in the process of assimilating these weapons into their forces, unless we can rachet down the reflexive hostilities between our two nations, they are a potent long term BM threat. My point is, I see that we have no choice, but to proceed with the appropriate BMD system, and that is a space-based directed beam system, as being worked on, by IST(Innovative Space Technologies) teams within the BMDO. Many deride such a system by calling it 'Star Wars', and to say its a Pentagon wet dream, Buck Rogers, etc etc, but I can assure you, that such a system IS very workable, with an initial 95 to 97% success rate on BM interception. If it WASN'T workable, you would not hear the vocal resistance from the Russian's, Chinese, or our European allies. I can understand the fear, its a fear based in the premise that instead of staying a DEFENSIVE system, it will devolve into becoming an OFFENSIVE system, used as an instrument of terror and coercion by an Imperial America. However, I feel this is bridge we shall have to burn when we come to, I pray it would not be used as an instrument to pursue national polity. Just so I can unveil my personal politics, I am a Jeffersonian Democrat, a classical liberal. This may be irrelevant to our discussion at hand, I only bring it forth to show that all who call for a coherent BMD system are not Reagan Republicans, or members of the religious right, but citizens with a concern for the defense of our nation.

(11617 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense