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?

hellfire34th - 01:21pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10411 of 10657)

SDI MAD MDA all Rock! What you morons forget is a STRONG AMERICA with programs like MAD and SDI and now MDA is what has kept the peace! Did anyone see the movie "Read Dawn" or read the book? You know that the book and the movie was based on the actual invasion plains of the USSR and it would have happened if it was not for MAD! The author of the book was briefed by the CIA and the NSA and some Russian defectors that were KGB on the invasion sanrio and he wrote a best selling book about it.

If America was not a powerful nation with nukes and SDI and now developing MDA we might possibly be speaking Russian, German or Japanese right now. For the most part diplomacy can be used but only if the aggressor is willing to talk. Most of the countries and rouge nations that have grievance with America DO NOT want to talk! They want to see the down fall of America and her way of life. So I say this to the people that don't want MDA or SDI: Take your family and move to Afghanistan and go there to find a diplomatic solution with Bin Laden and his followers. The fact is if Bin Laden had Nukes he would have used them on America... if he had an ICBM I fear NYC would be no more. The intelligence that has been gathered by Britain, Germany, Spain, Russia and America and a lot of other countries show Bin Laden was after nukes and the rocketry to deliver it to America. So what will it take to convince you nay sayers that MDA is the way to go for now... A nuke in your front yard?

wordspayy - 01:27pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10412 of 10657)

Hussein isn’t nuts. But a few on this forum may be;0

In an episode of Seinfeld the character of Kramer confronts Jerry with the possibility that the girl he is seeing runs a phonesex hotline. Seinfeld finds the accusations utterly preposterous and tells Kramer he is crazy to say such a thing Kramer retorts, “Is it! Or is it so right on the mark that I just blew your whole mind!” Such is the reaction I have when I attempt to convey to individuals that the despot of Iraq, Saddam Hussein is actually very much a rational individual. This runs counter to the very image we as Americans have created of “Butcher of Baghdad”.

Mr. Hussein may be many things. He is a ruthless thug but one cannot call him irrational in the practice of foreign policy. The assertion that Hussein is not irrational can be found in the simplicity of how he is examined from the perspective of what is known as game theory. Saddam doesn’t want to get blown up. He does not want to have the very thing he is trying to defend or at times enhance, completely and without question destroyed. In doing so, Saddam Hussein is adhering to a set of unwritten standards that all nations characterized as rational follow. Hussein will not initiate policy that will result in the total destruction of the state. He will not initiate policy that allows for zero maneuverability in trying to maintain the survival of both his regime and the nation state. He may weigh risks and miscalculate response, but his behavior reflects a leadership that adheres to the limits of being rational. For example, if we examine Hussein's actions during the Gulf War you will find that limits of conduct with the American led alliance had been drawn early on. If Hussein was “nuts” or irrational he would have not adhered to any limits in his decision making process. In fact the leadership of Iraq acted in a highly rational mode when conducting campaigns aimed at trying to break apart the fragile alliance created under George Bush. Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel. He had the ability to tip them with chemical and biological weapons. He did not. Why? Because Saddam knew that if he were the first to utilize weapons of mass destruction on another nation state, he would not be the last. He understood that use of such weapons would without question unleash a like response from Britain, America, France or Israel. That message was conveyed to Hussein in clear-cut terms early on through public posturing by the United States and its allies. America and its allies treated Iraq as a rational actor and conveyed the rules of game. America may talk rhetoric to its citizenship regarding the rationality of Iraq but when it comes to policy initiatives Iraq is treated as a rational nation state by the American leadership. If Hussein was not playing by rational standards he would have ignored the set rules and Unleashed WMD not caring about the consequences it had on his own states survival.

Instead he unleashed a limited conventional attack with SCUD missiles loaded with conventional weapons with the sole intent to shatter the coalition created against him. He gambled that Israel would strike back and that the alliance would crumble because Arab states would revoke support once Israel was attacking a fellow Muslim state. Today, with Americas long anticipated withdrawal from SALT I and the ABM protocol now official the United States has in effect paved the way for future encounters with nations like Iraq to not have such crystal clear consequences. America has shifted its deterrence strategy away from the majority of this world, the rational actor to that of the minority the irrational actor. In doing this, America actually decreases its overall security rather then enhances it. Such retooling of the worldwide deterrence model requires all other rational states to follow suit and defend themselves. Not following suit subjects worldwide leaderships with charges of not

(245 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense