[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 (249 previous messages)

beckq - 11:15am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#250 of 11863)

Vic, "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."

Answer: I spelled his name right in my post. I find this amazing due to my fine ability to spell most names incorrectly. However in this particular instance his name was spelled correctly.

Note also that I was quite fair and honest with you. I suggested to you his works and indicated my perspective on his views and how they fit into this debate

:"With the increase of the arms race the United States changed its view to that of Brodie in terms of nuclear strategy. My fellow vic take a look for Bernard Brodie (sp).Excellent introduction to American nuclear concepts-in particular the reasoning for second strike capabilities."

(sp)indicates it MAY be spelled wrong.However it was not.

In addition, he is to this issue of nuclear deterrence in America so basic, so well known, so simplistic in ones initial studying, so fundamental in formulation of an understanding of American policy that to NOT know who he is equal to that of talking about Federalism and not knowing whom Hamilton, Madison ,or Jay are. Much less the pen-name PUBLIUS

Bernard Brodie's pioneering studies for world politics and military policy in the nuclear age received international recognition and established him as a founder of modern strategic theory. He was the first scholar of strategic studies to discern the revolutionary nature of warfare in the nuclear age and to point the way to a fundamental revision of the concepts, language, and theories of modern warfare. As early as 1946, in his book The Absolute Weapon, Brodie foretold the use of "massive retaliation" in the 1950's. Brodie's other books dealing with issues of strategy and military history include: Layman's Guide to Naval Strategy (1942), Seapower in the Machine Age (1943), Strategy in the Missile Age (1959), Escalation and the Nuclear Option (1966), as well as From Crossbow to H-Bomb (Revised Ed. 1973), on which he collaborated with his wife, the late Fawn Brodie, a prominent historian.

S huh Vic,

go stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

beckq - 11:30am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#251 of 11863)

"But then, until you, I haven't met a man who would refer to an ICBM in a silo as an "overpriced male pecker..."

  • Then you need to listen to some George Carlin.

    beckq - 11:33am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#252 of 11863)

    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.

  • No contradiction exists with this term. You however seem to miss that you provided 3 definitions and I picked one that was in line with my point of view. The contradiction exists with your intial postions as was already pointed out.

    beckq - 11:41am Sep 6, 2000 EST (#253 of 11863)

    re: beckq #244. "This is not a game."

    What is not a game? Sir, all of deterrence strategy rests on Game Theory. It is indeed a game. From Chicken, to the decisions making situations like Prisoners dilemma to blind mans bluff, to chess, to tic TAC toe. In the early 80s Hollywood attempted to convey this to the general public in a movie called Wargames. I suggest you rent it.

    "Your argument only works in a bipolar world."

    Bipolarity as discussed by Kenneth Waltz and John Lewis Gaddis both say otherwise that nuclear weapons proliferated actually maintain stability in a multipolar environment. You need to understand that in this circle of expertise two opinions exist. One opinion supports the view that bipolarity is stable and creates a 'cold peace' between two hegemonic powers. They cite multipolarity as the cause for World War I and earlier European conflicts. The other view indicates the bipolarity is unnatural in world history and that multipolarity is the common balance of power known. It argues that multipolarity tied with economics (complex interdependence theory) produces a stronger more stable system then bipolar. Those who support multipolarity also maintain something that the other side cannot deny. Multipolarity in world history is more common then bipolar structures and now nuclear weapons are in the picture and this factor of technology cannot be denied.This group then follows up by saying that To counter this point the bipolar group views nuclear weapons proliferation as actually a positive factor in maintaining stability in a multipolar environment. Why? Because the bipolar group who tends to support neorealism view economics as not being strong enough to meet the unstable nature of multipolarity. Therefore this group welcomes nuclear weapons proliferation as a stabilizing factor in an inherently unstable multipolar environment.

    Mulitpolarity is considered LESS stable then bipolar. Nuclear proliferation actually decreases the instability of it.

    "How do you propose to handle the challenge of the other nuclear powers that are emerging."

  • Knowledge is power. It cannot be locked down. Proliferation is a natural action, one only needs to examine the nuclear bomb in 45 and now to witness this. One will never prevent proliferation; one can only slow it down. If one wants to slow it down then continue to increase funding of international regimes like MTCR,The Australian Group and the IAEA. Continue to pass legislation like the Nunn Luger Bill.Continue to pass and maintain such legislation like the Glenn Amendment. Even if its eventuality is lifting of sanctions so called for, the initial damage indicates a policy backed with an economic fist. Each group and such supportive legislative action plays a role in helping reduce the natural fast track of proliferation.

    beckq - 12:20pm Sep 6, 2000 EST (#254 of 11863)

    "If we respond tit for tat, you are using NUTS"

  • No. I suggest you go back and understand what NUTS (Nuclear Utilization Theory) is.

    More Messages Recent Messages (11609 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