Missile Defense

Mutually Assured Destruction is the only proven technology that truly works. Proper intelligence with Isreali-like assurance that any threats will be destroyed preemptively is certainly cheaper and more productive than a new round of ballistic blackmail. Of course, looking a the state of the current intelligence(sic) community, which failed to see the fall of the Soviet Union, failed to see the Indian nuclear breakout, etc, the argument for some machine-based deterrent sounds appealing.

Naturally the new Prez would like machines to tackle this job. He certainly trust machines to count missiles/ballots better than humans. Can't wait 'til they get a system running like the Aeigis system on American warships that shot down the Iranian civilian jet. Or the Russians shootingdown the Korean Airlines jet...doesn't give the flying public the warm and fuzzies, but make those military contractors just flush with all this American budget surplus.

armel7 - 12:56pm Jan 12, 2001 EST (#570 of 588)
Science/Health Forums Host

Rumsfeld urges a plan to protect satellites from enemy attack. See the article.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

bigred152 - 11:19pm Jan 12, 2001 EST (#571 of 588)

India and Pakistan

Meeting re nuclea restraint policy

had 3 wars in past years

bigred152 - 11:22pm Jan 12, 2001 EST (#572 of 588)

One way of protecting satallites might be to make them 'international' rather than national communications highways.

Other systems -- older methods are also being modelled and revised -- so that if the Sats are knocked out other systems can prevail.

bigred152 - 01:05am Jan 13, 2001 EST (#573 of 588)

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Tories/story/0,7369,421784,00.html

bigred152 - 11:15am Jan 13, 2001 EST (#574 of 588)

http://www.etf.bg.ac.yu/Uput/Knjige/termcomp/termcomp1.html

rshowalter - 06:33am Jan 16, 2001 EST (#575 of 588)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Right answers, that get to hardware that actually works, are an obligation, a sacred trust. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/16/science/16COYL.html

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars (and corrupting our contractors, with pressures to evade technical truth) on hardware nowhere close to working, that may never work, is a disservice to the country.

rshowalter - 07:15am Jan 22, 2001 EST (#576 of 588)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Guardian Unlimited Special: SON OF STAR WARS by Neil Perry Thursday January 18, 2001 http://guardianunlimited.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,6729,421543,00.html

contains the following, with much cited and available on line.

"William Hague has backed George W Bush's plans for a national missile defence system. Here's our guide to the best sites on Dubya's pet project

"1. It all began with Ronald Reagan and his ambitious (some would say fantastic) 1983 plan for a space-borne missile defence system, known as the strategic defence initative, but quickly dubbed Star Wars.

"2. The idea was immediately rubbished by many. Russia, fearing a nuclear attack, was particularly unhappy about it.

"3. There was also concern that the lasers Star Wars would employ to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles could themselves be used as weapons.

"4. Star Wars transformed into a missile-to-missile system, theatre high altitude area defence (THAAD), rather than Reagan's space laser fantasy. The system relied heavily on America's bases in the UK, Fylingdales and Menwith Hill in the Yorkshire Dales.

"5. The problem was, after an obscene amount of money was spent on the project, Star Wars still didn't work. To prove otherwise, the Pentagon allegedly rigged some tests.

"6. But some companies, such as Lockheed Martin, weren't worried, as Star Wars was very good for business.

"7. Enthusiasm for the whole project slowly waned throughout the 90s, until President Clinton decided to revive the idea. Predictably, his decision was also ridiculed.

"8. Although some people still thought it was a good idea.

"9. With the ascent of George W Bush, Star Wars - or the Son Of - is back on the agenda, now known as national missile defence.

"10. William Hague is behind the plan all the way. But is Tony Blair?

rshowalter - 07:18am Jan 22, 2001 EST (#577 of 588)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Guardian/Observer has decided that it is against the "Star Wars" initiative, and this decision may color the collection of news and comment it presents.

But I would like to see a similarly historical and detailed coverage of "Star Wars" 1, 2, 3, .... N from a pro Star Wars perpective.

Can such a case be set out?

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense