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
(246 previous messages)
- 09:20am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#247
re: beckq #242. Must be hot where you live. I haven't seen a case
of prickly heat that bad in quite a while. But then, until you, I
haven't met a man who would refer to an ICBM in a silo as an
"overpriced male pecker..."
re: beckq #243. I do believe you have, in #228. "So that view is
indeed what I wrote and fits within your narrow dictionary view." If
it fits, it is! Please explain that contradiction. If it quacks like
a duck, has feathers like a duck and waddles like a duck. It must be
re: beckq #244. This is not a game. Your argument only works in a
bipolar world. How do you propose to handle the challenge of the
other nuclear powers that are emerging?
How do you justify MAD against say, China? If intelligence
estimates are correct, we only lose 20 cities should China attack
us. MAD dictates we retalliate with the total destruction of the
attacking country. In this case a totally disproportionate response.
How do you justify this? If we respond tit for tat, you are using
NUTS. But NUTS is bad and can't be used. Which is it to be? Is this
another contradiction in your arguments?
Re: beckq #245. You have only provided a long convuluted
argument, #228 and #229, as to why MAD is a view and not a doctrine.
In that argument you contradicted yourself by agreeing that it "...
fits within your narrow dictionary view." Contradiction?
You provided references to the SALT 1 Treaty which upon reading
of the treaty proved your view to be incorrect at best, an outright
lie at worst. Contradiction?
You reference a Mr. Brodie, but he is so important to your
arguments that you can't even take the time to ensure you are
spelling his name correctly or to refer to any specific article or
book he has written. By golly, there's "ample background and rather
compelling background" and to support your arguments.
- 10:46am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#248
vic.hernandez - 09:20am Sep 6, 2000 EDT (#247 of 247)
Excellent. You are contradicting yourself on a consistent basis.
Thus why I told you from the onset that your initial position flaws
any reason to discuss this with you. Why? Because you have not a
problem altering your positions in every post. Your initial two
positions attacked themselves more then me and you attempted to
dismiss this with an admission that it was all a 'spelling' and
grammatical error. You also it appears seem to not mind altering my
words or my phrases. Where do your boundaries end? This argument has
been exhausted because your perspective has been answered to with
solid counterpoints. Rather then a continued discussion on those
points in hopes of salvaging your weak argument, your altering your
original positions, attacking myself, and altering my positions. You
did not really lose the debate before because if you walk away with
a better understanding of the issue and have expressed your points
in a professional and consistent manner then we all win. However
your obvious inability to comprehend another point of view and your
inability to understand the weakness of yours leaves you naked. I’m
not interested in your continued personal attacks because your ego
has been bruised by a true comment. From now on I answer only your
questions as they relate to this issue. Nothing more. In addition if
I already answered your questions I will do no more then cut and
paste my previous answers. You have a propensity to think that I am
going to alter my answers. No, unlike you I have a solid grasp of
the position I am taking and am not deviating from that point of
- 11:11am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#249
The ostensible reason given by the Clinton Administration and the
Pentagon for building a limited ballistic missile defense is the
threat of a small-scale attack from a rogue nation or a terrorist
group. Korea is cited as an example of a nation that will soon
possess an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching
the US homeland.
How serious is this threat, and is it any more serious than the
threat of a large-scale war with a major nuclear power? I am
particularly dubious of the claim that a terrorist group could come
into the possession of an ICBM tipped with a warhead. Developing and
deploying such a system would be extremely difficult for a small
group, even if they had the money. Far more likely would be a
scenario in which a group managed to smuggle a small nuclear device
into the US and detonate it in a large city. Their chances of
success and of not being identified as the perpetrators would be
Similarly, any small rogue nation that launched a missile at the
US would face devastating retaliation, since a small-scale strike
would have no chance of peremptorily knocking out the US capability
of a full-scale nuclear response. It would be suicide. If deterrence
worked during the cold war, why would it work any less in the
present era? The risks of a small-scale attack against the US would
be even greater.
Let me play Devil's advocate for a moment and pretend that the
NMD isn't just about boosting the defense budget and feeding the
hungry maw of the military-industrial complex. Then what could be
the motive for deploying such a system?
It is possible that it's simply a part of the Pentagon's
perceived peace dividend for having won the cold war. The ABM treaty
was signed to avert a costly arms race with the ex-Soviet Union and
because of technical difficulties in making a missile defense system
work. Well, guess what? The Soviet Union doesn't exist any more and
the Russian Replublic has neither the will nor the resources to
match the US in a renewed arms race to develop a defensive system.
The Pentagon may feel it is in a commanding position to ram a system
down the throats of its former adversaries. The Russian nuclear
strike force is aging, and it's expensive to keep it in working
order. Russia doesn't have the resources any longer to engage in a
major program of nuclear rearmament. The Pentagon may feel that it
could actually build a system that would shield the entire US from
any threat whatsoever. The putative threat that is discussed—rogue
nations and terrorists—is only a smoke screen for the real purpose
of the system, namely the neutralization of the remaining nuclear
strike capability in the ex-Soviet Union and in China.
Would it work?
Not likely. The technical difficulties are simply too daunting.
It would be far easier and cheapter to develop countermeasures that
would confuse the guidance systems of the interceptors than it would
be to build the defensive system.
This is why this is not about genuine defense. It's about
Pentagon ego and fat cat politics and multi-billion dollar
(11614 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science