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?

RobertShowalter - 07:08am Dec 19, 2001 EST (#10440 of 10657)

We should do better accounting. We should ask for better standards near the top. We should tailor our diplomatic positions to what can actually be done. And we should take care of our human resources - - people who were at levels where "doing what they are told" may be all that can be expected --- should be protected, for the future, with enough honesty about the past to avoid mistakes, and to use these people and institutions as they are.

For the cost proposed for a missile defense program that cannot work, we could solve the core problems of giving the world an indefinite, limitless source of energy, and do other things that could be done, need to be done, that our technical organizations could honorably do.

We have defense needs, too, and they are very serious. They are not served when large expenditures, and corrupting supression of accountability, commit our military to systems that can never do their job.

The triumph of Afghanistan is as big as it is, but no larger. We should notice the hardware and aircraft we had there, that actually worked. The b-52 (designed in 1952) had a big role. Fighters had some role. For many purposes, the best fighters from WWII could have served as well as our first line fighters. Bombers designed after the 1960's did worse than those designed earlier.

Our military engineers have built a lot of good stuff - and it works so well that they are often at a loss, finding things to do worth the cost.

If any "rogue state" seems likely to threaten the US or our allies with missiles, we should keep track of that. If there is a real and present danger, we need to use military forces that can WORK to end the threat.

Marine Corps Generals, or other competent military officers, will know very well how to do that. Equipment and organizations we have, including infantry, can give us effective protection.

Missile Defense programs offer no such protection, and can't. These programs are now so full of technical errors that they are beyond redemption. There are deeply rooted fatal problems all through the systems involved, even at the level of computer programming, but at other levels, too.

We need to do better than that. And act, diplomatically and operationally, on the basis of things that are true, and capabilities that we actually have.

wejjr2 - 10:15am Dec 19, 2001 EST (#10441 of 10657)

President Putin has played a weaker hand better than President Bush has played a stronger hand:

Act I: At the Crawford summit, Bush said he looked Putin in the eye, shook his hand, and that was enough to agree to steep reductions in intercontinental strategic nuclear warheads. Bush then proceeded to unilaterally commit the U.S. to cutting its better-maintained stockpile from 6000 down to the 2000 range. A strange scene is now being acted out of Putin insisting on a formal treaty, in writing, that is verifiable. This document is to be arrived at after lengthy negotiations–despite the Bush Administration’s disdain for “pieces of paper”–and will commit Russia to reduce its rusting arsenal to 2000 or lower, a level it can barely afford. Act II: Bush over-dramatically proceeds to fulfill a campaign pledge by withdrawing from the ABM treaty of 1972 that ruled out a national missile defense (NMD) against intercontinental missiles, and commits the country to a very expensive quest for the building blocks of a highly problematic NMD that is even less justifiable (theoretically) than it might have been during the Cold War arms race. Putin calmly objects-- winning diplomatic applause–and lets it appear that the U.S. has gotten something for the deep offensive weapon cuts, when he knows that such a missile defense system is technologically not feasible. Along the way, Putin picks up practically full membership in NATO, and an understanding of the Russian position on Chechnya--among other chips--while providing some assistance to the U.S. in the Afghan war.

This is the way to do business in the post-Cold-War 21st century? Some “realism”! Some defense!!

wbtake1 - 10:42am Dec 19, 2001 EST (#10442 of 10657)

Neorealism tends to take the "human" element out of picture. Neorealism is less voluntaristic and gives little room for individual state leaders and their diplomats to make a difference. I don't like the idea that strategic interactions within a given international structure overrides the human element i.e. human nature, psychology, domestic politics etc. These elements are essential to the human experience and the "Human Element" coupled with the "religious" element was the foundation of what our founding father were seeking to bring to fruition in America.

Back to MDA which is the subject at hand. It is clear that you don't like this idea but your reasons are misguided. From what I have gathered you think that MDA is a money pit and that we need to alter our way of life for the few through diplomatic channels. I disagree with your assessment! I think the money that is spent on MDA is needed and is vital to the human races survival. Has it ever crossed your mind that the technology brought to fruition from the R&D of MDA can be applied to SAD. The theories of operation are the same but on a grander scale. It is known from the Geo. record that the Earth has been impacted between 50 to 100 times with forces that can wipe out the human race. MDA is a way to kill two birds with one stone as one might say.

wbtake1 - 10:59am Dec 19, 2001 EST (#10443 of 10657)

"Americans trust Republicans and President Bush more than Democrats on the nation's main concerns: safeguarding the nation, fighting terrorism and improving the economy. So says a new poll conducted by Democrats.

Americans also favored Republicans on issues including values, fiscal discipline, crime and welfare reform, concluded a nationwide survey of registered voters for Democratic Leadership Council conducted by Bill Clinton's former pollster Mark Penn.

He said the findings bode "very ill for Democrats in 2004," the Washington Times reported today.

Much stronger public support for the Republicans on what DLC calls "toughness-to-govern issues" places the Democrats in peril for the next presidential election, Penn said.

"There has been a major shift in the issues facing the country and the Democratic Party from a previous emphasis on education and health care to a new emphasis on fighting terrorism, keeping America safe and strengthening the economy," he said."

(214 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense