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?

lunarchick - 07:37am Nov 17, 2000 EDT (#502 of 510)

F-16s were carrying a load of dummy bombs meant to be dropped on a range in Avon Park, east of the crash site.

County public safety Chief Jay Moyles said one of the dummy bombs fell and stuck into a four-lane highway's median. http://news.excite.com/news/ap/us/military-crash

robertbriscoe - 10:05pm Nov 17, 2000 EDT (#503 of 510)

Is a treaty with the U.S. worth the paper it is written on?

The U.S. signed and ratified the ABM Treaty with the U.S.S.R. in terms of which we agreed not to develop and deploy ABM systems such as the missile defense system now being proposed.

If our military and defense experts honestly feel that with the increase in nuclear proliferation a missile defense system is necessary, the U.S. should negotiate mutually acceptable modifications to the ABM Treaty with Russia.

In an earlier age the U.S. arrogantly violated treaties with Native American nations whenever it felt it was expedient to do so.

The U.S. is now the only Superpower on Earth. But can we afford to demonstrate to Russia and the world that we will only abide by a treaty as long as it suits us? And is that the right thing to do?

rshowalter - 09:24am Nov 18, 2000 EDT (#504 of 510)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And, with the stakes in nuclear weapons as they are, is it even remotely safe?

jorian_s - 10:55am Nov 18, 2000 EDT (#505 of 510)

Down to 1000 or so warheads, eh? Great. Makes me feel almost as good as a man facing a firing squad might feel if told that the clips only hold a couple dozen rounds.

rshowalter - 01:22pm Nov 18, 2000 EDT (#506 of 510)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Prohibition would be best. By far the best.

But is is terribly important to get down the numbers, if that's all that can be achieved. As the numbers of these holocaust-makers get down, the chance for survival of the WORLD increases. The chances of mistakes decreases. The magnitude of probable mistakes and worst possible mistakes if things go wrong decreases.

Also, as reductions are being considered, people get closer to questions of what these terror weapons are actually good for.

After a good look, especially a look with the public paying attention, the arguments for prohibition may come to be seen. The safe thing to do with these weapons is to get rid of them, worldwide. The most important barrier to that, now, is political will and consensus in the Unitied States.

kalter.rauch - 06:15am Nov 19, 2000 EDT (#507 of 510)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

rshowalter......

Now, you swear you're not saying all these things about nukes because of some wacko religious belief or...or..."moral code".

I mean, this is all about numbers, isn't it...the number I am, the better off I'll be ?!?!? Because if it isn't, I'm not sure I should read your posts......what with thought crime going around, and all...one can't be too careful then, can they ?

How come youse wants to get rid of 'em all anyway? What's in it for you then, guvnuh?

rshowalter - 01:53pm Nov 19, 2000 EDT (#508 of 510)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Kalter , I have moral problems with nuclear weapons. So, I believe, do most people who've looked at them straight. Many religious people are horrified by nuclear weapons, and so am I. Many athiests are just as horrified. I don't see how responsible people can be anything but horrified by the massive mass death that would occur if nucler weapons were used. In Rehearsing Armageddon , the CNN documentary, it was clear, and it is clear in other ways, that the current nuclear standoff is beyond reason, and could easily destroy the word.

I'm not alone in being concerned. In #374 , this thread rshowalt 10/4/00 5:08am there's an impressive list of people, including prominant miltary, political, religous, and business leaders, publicly supporting prohibtion of nuclear weapons.

So, yes I have moral and religious motivations to want to abolish nuclear weapons. Nothing "whacko," or particularly unusual, about that.

But both the moral and the religious issues are judgements "about numbers". Numbers involving odds of nuclear exchanges. Numbers about injury and death.

I believe that the risks of nuclear destruction are very great. (I've also hoped that, by pointing out risks to officials, those risks can be made less. Perhaps correnspondence in these forums has done some of that. In the course of reducing missiles on alert, it might be possible to significantly improve controls, and I hope that happens.) I think the probability of world destruction is high, and have said so. I also appreciate, as well as I can, the MAGNITUDE of the carnage involved. A whole planet is wrenched when a child is killed before a TV camera, as happened recently in Israel. Well, in a nuclear exchange, millions, tens or hudreds of millions, or billions of people would die. Numbers that saturate and overwhelm human perception. Most of the deaths would be no prettier than those in the Nazi death camps, and there would be any more such deaths. These are ugly, agonizing deaths to think about, and there would be no one around to bury most of the people, virtually all of them innocent, who would die.

These seem good reasons to want to get rid of nuclear weapons.

Kalter, you also ask "What's in it for you then, guvnah?" A desire to be useful is a big part of it. A serious, lifelong concern for the problem is a big part of it. There's another part, too.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense