New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?

rshowalt - 09:41am Nov 12, 2000 EDT (#492 of 498)

Could you be more clear about "gray areas"? I believe, with many if not most of the senior officers who have ever been responsible for them, that nuclear weapons need to be eliminated and effectively prohibited.

Before elimination, the size of arsenals (97+ % American and Russian) need to be made much smaller - enough smaller that the destruction of the world is no longer a possibility (or a probability). There'd still be plenty of deterrance after a balanced reduction from tens of thousands of warheads to hundreds of warheads. Hundreds of H-bombs is more than enough for the biggest nightmare in history, yet it is not enough to end history.

It isn't possible, in any way I can see, to "enslave" people using nuclear weapons, which are extermination weapons. They just aren't useful in that way. You suggest that prohibition of nuclear weapons risks "enslavement." Perhaps I've missed something you can point out?

I've tried to be pretty clear about how important it is to prohibit these weapons, and how that will take a combination of persuasion and force.

The intermediate step - getting the number of American and Russian city-killing weapons down to a few hundred, would make control far easier. The probability of any accident would be far less than today, and the serious of the accidents that might occur would be far less. We'd all be safer.

Though tragedies killing millions might still occur, the world would be saved.

That's worth doing. Have you any arguments against staged reductions, including a VERY LARGE initial reduction?

And what is THE GRAY AREA you refer to?

Kalter, I appreciate your questions. If every argument in FAVOR of nuclear weapons, and in FAVOR of current balances, was made in public, I think that would be a public service.

kalter.rauch - 05:37am Nov 13, 2000 EDT (#493 of 498)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

Rshowalt(er)......

Re: "The Grey Area"

I hesitate almost to the point of refusal in being any more definitive. If this seems like obfuscating mischief, I'm sorry.

II Gray is a color......

rshowalt - 06:20am Nov 13, 2000 EDT (#494 of 498)

Nonsense.

So there are wonderful advantages of nuclear weapons, that our nation would be loathe to give up, that are, nonetheless, so diffuse and secret that they can't be set out clearly?

Are there, especially, advantages that require tens of thousands of warheads?

Advantages that could not be served by a few warheads, or a few tens or hundreds of warheads?

Could it be that the "gray area" was really nothing more than the need to keep some people employed who have devoted their lives to thinking up ways that "nuclear weapons are good for you?" People who have developed a whole culture, in some parts of the country, that is committed to the idea that nuclear weapons are high status, and somehow good?

So far as I can tell, the arguments for the current nuclear weapon status quo are nonexistant. You haven't given any valid arguments for it at all.

Nor were workable reasons found, earlier in this thread, when I spent a day discussing the matter with a person evidently well informed, and probably with a ranking position in the U.S. government.

Do you have any reasons that the current nuclear weapon status quo makes sense? Any reasons to believe it is safe? Do you know anybody who has?

kalter.rauch - 07:11am Nov 13, 2000 EDT (#495 of 498)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

I would hate to see a World Government, but unless the causes of war are removed, and with them any reason to use nuclear weapons, how would you like to see responsibility delegated for the supervision of a force sufficient to dispense with any forseeable threats (those small enough to be dealt with by nuclear weapons)?

We can calculate the threats posed by comets and asteroids (except for chaotic gravitational resonances)......but how do we know what the entire range encompasses of possible threats from beyond?

rshowalter - 11:00am Nov 13, 2000 EDT (#496 of 498)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I've advocated getting rid of nuclear weapons, not getting rid of militaries.

It will take me a while to go back and find all the statements, from senior U.S. military people, stating that nuclear weapons are not reasonably useful military weapons, and that military stability does not need them. That's what you are asking for.

I am for a strong national defense.

The desire for a strong national defense is no valid argument for maintenance of nuclear weapons - especially in the ridiculously large numbers now maintained, that threaten the existence of the whole world.

robertbriscoe - 10:58pm Nov 13, 2000 EDT (#497 of 498)

In the controversy over the proposed missile defence system might we be overlooking something?

If I were an Iranian or Iraqui leader or a terrorist who came into posession of atomic weapons, I would not spend more years and billions developing a reliable missile delivery system in order to attack the U.S. Indeed I might not have the capability to do so.

I would pack a bomb in a container and ship it to the U.S. from a neutral third country. Once in the U.S., I would have it trucked to within a few miles of any civilian or military target I desired. I would then have an agent activate a timed detonation mechanism.

This delivery method would bypass any U.S. missile defence systems and have the advantage of preserving my anonymity, something a missile attack would not do.

In my opinion, this scenario is more probable than a nuclear missile attack from a rogue state. Has the Department of Defense done any studies on what measures we may realistically take to defend ourselves against such an attack?

jorian_s - 09:35am Nov 14, 2000 EDT (#498 of 498)

Mr Briscoe, that is my fear. I can see some Pakistani religious fanatics dutifully rowing a nuke laden skiff into an american port...

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense