New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

mazza9 - 09:24pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10271 of 10657)
Louis Mazza

gisterme:

Notice how Ledzepplin uses "Star Wars". As long as it's called "Star Wars" you can denigrate an idea and cause it to be viewed in an emotional light. President Regean did't propose some Hollywood construct. He proposed as Strategic Defense Initiative. Instead of frying the world he proposed neutralizing an "offensive", (pardon the pun), weapon.

Ledzepplin, I was stationed at Minot AFB in the early 70s and had the clearance and access to the "war plans" of the 5th Bomb Wing and the 91st Strategic Missile Wing. To me, defense was better than MAD.

I remember the night that President Nixon mined Haiphong Harbor. SAC went to Defcon 2 and we generated our bomber force(all leaves cancelled, all training flights cancelled, all birds loaded with you know what and ready for WWIII).That evening I was at the base theater rehearsing with our little theater group. The Klaxon went off and I nearly pooped my pants! I called the command post because I needed to check in for my particular EWO mission. I heard the B-52 engines cranking up and I figured we were cooked. It was just a taxi exercise and the command post controller and I cursed the nerd at SAC command post for triggering the test.

Do I wish my children to live with this threat, especially when these weapons are in the hands of people who aren't as sophisticated and emotionally mature. Heck no. In martial arts, the focus is on defense. As you train you develop the confidence and assuredness that an enemy perceives and you never need to break boards except in practice. Better that then a ground zero that calls to mind too many 50s SciFi classics like "Them", "It came from Beneath the Sea" etc...

LouMazza

11111zbl - 10:42pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10272 of 10657)

mazza9 11/1/01 9:24pm

Great information. Wonderful to see how a deranged Nixon was ready to nuke the world in a Cold War dispute. What an idiot. We minned a harbor and went on the "defensive", ready to nuke millions? Even better than defense, is keeping morons like Nixon out of power.

gisterme - 02:45am Nov 2, 2001 EST (#10273 of 10657)

mazza9 wrote (mazza9 11/1/01 9:24pm):

"Notice how Ledzepplin uses "Star Wars".

I noticed, Lou. :-) I think that guys like led stick to those old stereotype terms because they can't think of anything else. Brings to mind the habits of the ostrich...of course, we humans shouldn't blame the poor ostriches for where they stick their heads because, after all, they only have little bird-brains.

gisterme - 03:26am Nov 2, 2001 EST (#10274 of 10657)

gisterme 6/21/01 6:50pm

Here are repeats of a couple of posts from back in June that sum up the arguements for and against BMD from that time. Interesting how things have changed since the original postings...

So...let's sum up this discussion with regards to ballistic missile defense.

Arguements "FOR" a BMD:

1. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy requires having large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons "at the ready". It is a nuclear accident waiting to happen. Building missile defenses is one way to begin moving away from the "balance of terror" concept.

2. A BMD would be a significant bargaining chip that could accelerate the world-wide stand-down of ICBMs. A partial missile shield would allow the US to unilatirally take down a significant number of strategic nukes and their delivery systems.

That could be the beginning of a "disarms" race that might bring the US and Russian strategic arsenals to a small number, perhaps about on par with others who have strategic nukes. At that point (or some point before) the missile shield could be shared with all as a sort of "insurance policy" that should simplify negotiations to get rid of the remainder of the strategic nuclear missiles in the world.

3. A BMD is technically feasable including countermeasures to defeat decoys and other means of deception.

4. An effective missile shield would give some protection, both real and psycological against a suicide attack from from some small nation with rogue leadership or an independent terrorist organization that has managed to buy, beg, borrow, steal or secretly build an ICBM or MRBM.

5. The pursuit of solutions to tough military technical problems in the past century has cost a lot but has produced a windfall of scientific and technological advancement, especially in consumer products, as a collateral benefit. There's no reason to think that BMD research would yield any less return on the investment even if the BMD were never acutally deployed.

6. Certain segments of the Military Industrial Complex could be kept buisy re-processing that first bunch of US warhead cores into nuclear power plant fuel. More of those folks could be used to be sure we know how to build and operate nuclear power plants safely...a way to use at least part of the MI complex to beat weapons into plowshares.

7. Non-nucler BMD components are safer and less expensive to maintain than strategic nuclear weapons components.

8. An effective BMD could provide protection against an accidental strategic launch or a launch due to a small conspiracy anywhere in the world.

9. Removal of the entire ICBM class of nuclear weapons will reduce the worst case nuclear scenario from "total anihilation" to "someplace got devistated".

10. There will still be plenty of tactical nukes to assure defense of home or allies from attacks by otherwise overhwelming conventional forces.

(383 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense