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?

rshow55 - 07:02pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10638 of 10657)

Great speech by Queen Elizabeth, cited in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/612

" Every one of us needs to believe in the value of all that is good and honest; we need to let this belief drive and influence our actions." http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/current/speech/

There were some similar ideas in an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, written shortly before his death:

" Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace."

This quote was on the last page of the American Heritage Picture History of World War II , by C.L. Sulzberger and the editors of American Heritage , published in 1966.

Roosevelt was one of the most militarily effective presidents the US ever had. No patsy. No stranger to the use of force. Steadily, he had better military judgement than any other political leader in WWII - and the organizational and political gifts to make his judgement work.

He also initiated the Manhattan Project. I wonder if he would have made the decisions about Hiroshima, and later about the H bomb that Truman made.

We need weapons, and effective military forces --- but within limits that make human sense. And the "ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace" is still essential - and will continue to be.

I wonder it the world would be better, had Roosevelt lived years longer. It would, surely, be a different place in some ways.

rshow55 - 07:06pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10639 of 10657)

I can't imagine Roosevelt, or Truman either, continuing the nuclear terror after 1991.

Perhaps one can "justify" the whole nuclear policy of the cold war before that. Perhaps.

But what are we doing with all those missiles, ready to strike, now?

We're doing so with basic systems, designed in fundamental ways, in the 1950's and 1960's. It has been a long time. The world, and our vulnerabilities, have changed a lot. And many of the military-technical-engineering judgements made since 1970 have gone wrong -- perhaps because our hopes have outrun our technical and analytical capabilities.

gisterme - 07:57pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10640 of 10657)

rshow55 1/3/02 7:06pm

"...But what are we doing with all those missiles, ready to strike, now?..."

The massive nuclear arsenals are already on their way out, Robert. That's because there's way more trust between their possesors than there was prior to 1991. Be patient. We'll both likely live to see the largest strategic nuclear arsenals no larger than a few dozen missiles or perhaps even less. Maybe none. The things are obsolete as rational tools of political leverage because they are too terrible for any sane leader to ever use except as last-ditch defense.

I'm entirely with you in wanting to see strategic nuclear arsenals reduced to the point where even the worst case would still allow survival of the species. That might not take as long as we may think.

The arguement that reduction of nuclear arms to that point would encourage their use just doesn't fly. Consider India and Pakistan. Both have nuclear weapons but neither has enough to entirely annihilate the other. So is that encouragement for them to use what they have? I'd say that to think so is absolute nonsense.

In my view, the much greater danger is that one, two or a few bombs may fall into the hands of evil men who just want to spill blood. To me, the most chilling potential of the "accident" factor...the accounting "accident" that "loses" some bombs...seems much more plausible than an accidental large scale launch.

One powerful arguement in favor of an effective ballistic missile defense is that it would eliminate the effect of a small-scale launch whether that launch was by accident or by conspiracy.

lchic - 12:10am Jan 4, 2002 EST (#10641 of 10657)

Going right back to primitive social patterns,

the male stood on the edge of the clearing guarding the boundary - animals use scent markers - males traditionally skirmishes and scuffles

the females were communicative and kept group social fibres woven

How did people think about Nukes in C20?
Who were the people who thought about them?
Which people thought in quantities?
Which with logic - ie they are unusable!
When and why did folks such as Russel,B; Lennon,J; and posters here - see the light!

Looking at the artificial demarcation between India and Pakistan (which to all intents and purposes is India) then:

Who's standing on the boundary looking out?
Which people are wanting war - is this media jingoism?
Why has it been diplomatically easy to persuade IndiaPakistan not to use Nukes?

What are IndiaPakistan hoping to gain from the rest of the world - the mediators - from their 'pretend' stance?

Why has Pakistan got so many factional-groups and elements/wildcards not brought into line by its government?

lchic - 12:42am Jan 4, 2002 EST (#10642 of 10657)

India: "A critically acclaimed poet, he still takes time off from affairs of state to indulge in music and in a bit of gourmet cooking http://www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/2001/pm_2001.htm http://www.whitehouse.gov/national-anthem/newdelhi.html

Pakistan: (Run by a military man whose philosophy would be ... Order with Peace?) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882481.html http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107861.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/national-anthem/text/islamabad.html

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense