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 - 09:06pm Jan 13, 2002 EST (#10749 of 10762)

Some expository poems - March 1, 2001 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1555

lchic - 09:29pm Jan 13, 2002 EST (#10750 of 10762)

'If I ruled the world
Every day would be the First Day of Spring'see

Got me to thinking how is the world ruled and what can be done about it?

lchic - 09:43pm Jan 13, 2002 EST (#10751 of 10762)

Is the world ruled by Leaders, by individuals or does it just freewheel?

If it is ruled by Leaders, then in the current climate they have a wonderful opportunity to conference and determine to bring down Nuclear Weapons.

Looking at Leaders individually they often display fine intellect and have aspects that give people confidence in them and their style.

note: A common thread running throught the personalities of males who have recently committed shameful misdemeanours has been their 'search' for self-identity and need of true Leadership.

Who can males identify with - in a good sense - who can they look-up to?

Where is genuine world Leadership?

Why haven't Leaders had the courage to do necessary and 'outstanding' things?

Could 'everyday be like the First day of Spring' - in an emotional and uplifting sense?

mazza9 - 10:41pm Jan 13, 2002 EST (#10752 of 10762)
Louis Mazza

"Unless I misunderstand the situation, one misfire, from anywhere, and the US missiles could go up like a string of firecrackers -- under easily imaginable circumstances. Perhaps the Russian, too -- they certainly would if the US fired many missiles.

That would end the world."

"President Clinton changed the US's retaliation policy from launch on warning"

Nuclear Response

Our most recent ICBM was the Peacemaker and Updated Trident SLBM which were fielded in the 80s. Russia fielded a new generation ICBM just last year. What are they responding to?

LouMazza

lchic - 11:15pm Jan 13, 2002 EST (#10753 of 10762)

The button to push?

Is the MIND button (personal philosophy) of greater or lesser importance than the techno-button (military strategy)?

syndicatilist - 04:25am Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10754 of 10762)

mazza9 1/13/02 10:41pm

..."What were they responing to?"

How about a US president who abandons an out dated treaty, and replaces it with a vague, unspecified agreement to reduce some warheads. Moscow is uneasy with this vague and fuzzy appraoch to arms reduction. Of course they don't want to be easily dominated by us, and will strive to improve their missile capabilities. They don't want to get suckered into reducing their nukes, only the have Bush bend to internal pressures to fewer reductions, since he never specified numbers.

lchic - 05:05am Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10755 of 10762)

They don't want to get suckered into reducing their nukes, only the have Bush bend to internal pressures to fewer reductions, since he never specified numbers.

As gambling chips - they still aren't worth hanging onto - because of clean-up/destruction costs of an accident

:
• forseen - (as per stocks) or
• unforseen ~ (accidents re stolen materials) or
• predictable - misuse of materials by antisocial

mazza9 - 12:22pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10756 of 10762)
Louis Mazza

The Russians fielded this new generation missile in 2001. This means that it was in development in 2000 and earlier. The decision to develop and place this missile into operation predates the abrogation of the 1972 ABM treaty. We cancelled this treaty within the perview of the treaty's provision. When we couldn't negotiate Start II, (under the Clinton Administration), the Russians took this as a reason to upgrade their ICBM force.

LouMazza

rshow55 - 12:30pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10757 of 10762)

Putin has pushed for DEEP cuts (to the level of 100's, or less) and the Russians have advocated elimination of nuclear arms (subject to conditions) for a long time. But with the US agressive, and escalating, and evading responsible accounting -- of course the Russians, from time to time, update their forces.

rshow55 - 12:44pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10758 of 10762)

So, Mazza, we're agreed that lasar weapons based on destroying a target by heating are completely defeated by a clean reflective decal?

And there are SERIOUS (read fatal) technical defects in ALL of the "missile defense" programs?

MD10721-10723 rshow55 1/10/02 10:16am

We need approaches to missile defense that can work. The MD proposals of this administration can't.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense