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?

Wordspayyy - 02:41pm Dec 20, 2001 EST (#10457 of 10657)

longiiland - 07:27pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#69 of 10456)

Thus the primary point of nuclear deterrence, to hold your nations citizens hostage in exchange for holding all nations holding like citizens hostage. This creates the inability to view nuclear strikes as something one can survive against. It destroys the very core of what one fights to protect. The Nation. ABM systems put the 'win' and 'chance' back into nuclear war. It makes nuclear war a tool to be utilized, lowers conventional war crossover points and gives a chance when no chance existed before.

all rational states view attacking another state with nuclear devices as the absolute destruction of themselves at the same time. . You notice I haven't said we just sit back and take it.

Nations maintain nuclear deterrence with, and quite clear to the world what is/is not going to have anothers regime destroyed if they choose to use WMD against another state..

It would 'complicate it' for the wrong reasons. It would view nuclear warfare as a chance to be taken since the risk of survival has now been increased with the deployment of such a system. It destroys worldwide deterrence. .. Once an ABM system is deployed, it will be continuously improved. until the ultimate platform is that of a space based-laser system. Knowledge cannot be locked down. Each rational nation would see the largest nuclear weapons state moving ahead with plans to 'survive' nuclear war-to make it 'winnable' even if not the intent of the US that is what is doing. Thus worldwide nuclear deterrence is destroyed and all nations allied and despot will seek to enhance themselves. Just like nuclear bombs proliferated from 45 onward one only needs to apply the same concept to this system. Each nation would have varying levels of systems designed to survive-and thus the risk for nuclear crossover points would increase. Conventional conflict would lead far quicker to brushfires of nuclear exchanges because no longer is one side absolute in knowing he may be destroyed. The largest nuclear power has the ability in our time to prevent the majority of this world the rational actor nation-from moving ahead with such things. All America needs to do is not design it.

Wordspayyy - 02:43pm Dec 20, 2001 EST (#10458 of 10657)

longiiland - 07:34pm Jun 9, 2000 EST (#70 of 10457)

People fail to consider that the irrational actor need not fight according to the DOD war books or the Pentagons models of warfare. CIA perspectives place the use of such devices in the future as high-but belong to no-state-but rather the individual irrational actor-or movement-and not be flown in via a tranjectory. Rather fluid nature of Americas borders and its democratic freedoms allow for security to not exist. Total security is impossible-.Attempts to persue it are counterproductive and only make you more insecure because your actions require all rational state to examine how to defend themselves against you.

Wordspayyy - 02:45pm Dec 20, 2001 EST (#10459 of 10657)

longiiland - 01:01pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#85 of 10458)

The deployment of an NMD system that other states view as undermineing deterrence will almost certainly provoke a reaction that will undermine U.S. security.

Wordspayyy - 02:46pm Dec 20, 2001 EST (#10460 of 10657)

longiiland - 02:45pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#92 of 10458)

The fatal flaw in the present system is

its aim at the minority of this world(irrational actor) and its inability to deter irrational behavior.

The very deployment requires the majority of this world(the rational actor) to balance against the very actions of another rational actor.

Being LESS secure with deployment of such a system then non deployment

Wordspayyy - 02:48pm Dec 20, 2001 EST (#10461 of 10657)

Once again Sir, you fail to understand that your 'defense' is 'offensive' to every thing else-and as such requires all others to move to match your 'defense' position-not against individuals-but against you.

Wordspayyy - 02:50pm Dec 20, 2001 EST (#10462 of 10657)

evenbetta - 01:41pm Jul 6, 2000 EST (#124 of 10460)

ABM advocates wants someone to act 'this way only' yet it never considers that ANY WAY is suitable for the simple objective of attacking knowing without question and without care that such an action will mean being obliverated. "Since you are more familiar with history than I, find a suitable example of the world being caught with its pants down."

Any building of a wall in human history. The Great Wall of China.Building any wall in human history in the end is futile.They are temporary and your attempt to build one for a long term solution goes against the very patterns of time and human history itself

Wordspayyy - 02:51pm Dec 20, 2001 EST (#10463 of 10657)

evenbetta - 09:43am Jul 7, 2000 EST (#140 of 10462)

"It's so easy to write (as I have) that we'll nuke North Korea if they take out Seattle"

You must have never seen America during its its fits for revenage. Its cry by its population to 'DO SOMETHING'. If you think America or its population would desire restraint at this point- then continue to think of it that way.Be the idealist.

(194 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense