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?

rshowalter - 05:06am Feb 6, 2001 EST (#648 of 650)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

When you're spending scarce resources, and placing bets on which the safety of the nation depends, function matters.

MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM WON'T WORK .....by David Wright and Theodore Postol .......Published on Thursday, May 11, 2000 in the Boston Globe

We ought to look hard at outlawing nuclear weapons effectively.

No reason to deny that it would be hard. But we need to see if it is something that could be made to work.

Can nuclear defense work? Who says so, offering evidence in detail, that goes beyond a clear eyed "trust us" ? Is there anyone in the congress, who has seen such evidence?

dirac_10 - 09:58pm Feb 7, 2001 EST (#649 of 650)

A couple points...

With the increasing ease of producing WMD, with dozens, soon hundreds of govt and nongovt groups with the ability, it is, on a practical basis absolutely impossible to outlaw nuclear weapons.

The only thing that would/will get it under control is the threat of overwhelming force from some kind of world govt/authority.

And they most certainly would need massive overwhelming nuclear force to back it up.

We couldn't find the stupid WWII scuds in a postage stamp sized piece of desert. We have no clue what others have built without massive forced inspections. If everyone disarmed, some Saddam or crime outfit could take over the world in a day with an ultimatum.

The other point is that regardless of it's nature, a suitcase bomb must be prepositioned, or at least transported to the US. This is very risky business. I'm not sure what the rule book says, but I suspect any prepositioning would be treated the same as the launch of ICBM's.

Saddam, with prepositioned WMD in the US would be under the non-trivial risk, 24 hrs/day, of someone defecting or some technical thing, and Iraq would glow in the dark for a century. No warning, no second chance.

So what will happen? Hopefully, the interlocking trade will make it bad for business to have war anywhere. And of course the tendency of anyone prospering to not rock the boat.

What more likely will happen is some terrorist or Saddam type will do something that scares the US and the rest of the civilized world rather badly.

And we will lose our civil liberties, and the Saddams of the world that don't instantly, and sincerely enthuastically, welcome complete inspections of every and any kind will be instantly destroyed. Oh, yeah.

rshowalter - 06:43am Feb 8, 2001 EST (#650 of 650)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A lot of times, people find solutions that aren't as ugly as that, Dirac .

I should add, for the record, that I am NOT a pacifist, that I am NOT against the use of military force.

Let me take some time to comment some more.

Dirac, since I first got on this site, and Lunarchick first got active here, there's been a lot of discussion. Have you read it? Thought about it? Do you have clear, focused (preferably nondefamatory) comments about things said then?

That text represents a lot of work, and a lot of able people, some influential, looked at it. When they commented, that mattered. When they did NOT comment, that may have mattered, as well.

And, Dirac , do you have any comments about the Wright and Postol article I hotkeyed in #648? I don't think you can just ignore the arguments in that article, made by real people, with real reputations, who put them on the line, if you're a responsible human being, taking authoritative positions on this forum (especially, doing so without giving your real name.)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense