New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 07:01pm Feb 22, 2001 EST (#759 of 761)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In the current world, with the new flexibilities that come from the internet, our nuclear forces are also terribly vulnerable to attack.

They cannnot be made invulnerable.

The old ideas of stability are all wrong.

Nor can these weapon systems be made "fault tolerant" - if the system fails, the chance of having ALL or almost all missiles going off is much too great.

This would be true even if the technical controls were flawless -and they are far from being so.

By far the safest and most practical thing to do with nuclear weapons is to prohibit them, in ways that can be enforced into the indefinite future.

Perhaps people need to understand just how vulnerable these systems now are. They are sitting ducks -- accidents waiting to happen.

They are obsolete, dangerous, and we should take them down.

And we should institute a rigorous, practical nuclear defense.

Prohibition of nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction.

Prohibition with teeth.

lunarchick - 04:05am Feb 23, 2001 EST (#760 of 761)
lunarchick@www.com

Perly whites - bite, so says Mac_The

Those domicile in a two horse town, may not have concern that a missile is pointing at them. Whereas those in high population National capitals have to assume that missiles are directed at them.

Without thinking too hard about this, one might assume much of the world population is directly targeted and the rest indirectly from the flow-ons and fall-out. So we are all targeted. To have a gun held to the head is a psychological nightmare .. and the world is undergoing this nightmare .. some acknowledging it, others preferring not even to think of it.

And the 'presidents' hold the knowledge, hold the 'secret' as to where the missiles are directed. Lets assume that counter-intelligence also avails information regarding the connurbations that will be 'happy' to receive the incoming missiles.

So overall the 'secret' is either known, or can be assumed .. just look at a population_political map.

In the era of litigation, isn't it strange that there is nothing before a court - somewhere in the world, demanding a right to know about missiles.

rshowalter - 06:23am Feb 23, 2001 EST (#761 of 761)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

ABM, NMD - Alphabet Soup of Defense Part 1: International Security in the Balance ... An expression of some Russian views.

For peace, we need to know why we and the Russians disagree, and we need to CHECK FACTS to see which side, in specific cases, happens to be right.

There are expressions of a clear view, in paradigmatic conflict witth our own, here and in related sites.

It is fair to assume that both sides have had people among them who have used deception from time to time, and will. That being so, it is easy for either side to find its own position absolutely compelling, and the other side's position absolutely wrong, both in fact and morals.

People can be sure of themselves, and wrong. Facts have to be checked, because the issues here are life and death.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense