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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 04:13pm Feb 7, 2002 EST (#11338 of 11350)

"The exercise would be in the interest of essentially all credible stakeholders involved.

"Including, and perhaps especially including, the officers and elected officials concerned in the administration, and the contractors.

For instance, could Boeing and TRW possibly make enough money on ABL to compensate them, as corporate entities, for the embarrassment of collecting billions of dollars after it was clear that they were working on equipment that had no chance of working?

Similar questions apply to the other contractors.

Everybody understands mistakes. But mistakes, once seen, have to be corrected, and the consequences dealt with. If they are papered over, especially in organized and plainly deceptive ways -- the word "mistake" comes to be replaced with another one.

gisterme - 06:07pm Feb 7, 2002 EST (#11339 of 11350)

vhurtado 2/7/02 3:01pm

"...There is little incentive for a terrorist group or a developing country to use long-range missiles. Other means of delivery are less expensive, more reliable, and can deliver much larger payloads more accurately than long-range missiles..."

That's true unless the missiles are armed with WMD. Nobody argues much that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are working very hard to develop long range missiles and WMD. Even though their use of long range missiles may seem illogical from your point of view and mine, apparently it does not from theirs. Otherwise, Iraq and N. Korea wouldn't be starving their people to acquire those things.

I agree with you completely that we need to do much more to insure that means of WMD delivery other than ballistic missiles are defended against. In fact, I'm sure much is being done right now. The more time that goes by, the stronger our defense against those methods will be. However, it seems kind of silly to bar the door but leave the windows open...especially when we know that potential adversaries are working hard to get the tools necessary to come in through the windows.

So there are two very real threats, one is current, the other will be in the near future.

It seems unwise to wait until our adversaries have WMD-armed ballistic missiles before we begin developing a defense against them. As you've said, the MD technology under development won't be ready for a while even if we give it full effort. I just hope we haven't waited too long already.

Even though I doubt that you'd argue about his motives, why would a guy like Saddam Hussein launch a missile at a US or European city? Wouldn't he expect to be annihilated himself if he did that? Not if he did it by use of a proxy like Al Qieda. That's just a different application of stealth.

Would the US or any nuclear-armed nation annihilate a nation of mostly innocent people just to try to kill one guilty guy even though he were responsible for the slaughter of a million of our own? I hope not.

rshow55 - 06:14pm Feb 7, 2002 EST (#11340 of 11350)

gisterme, vhurtado 2/7/02 3:01pm makes the point:

"...There is little incentive for a terrorist group or a developing country to use long-range missiles. Other means of delivery are less expensive, more reliable, and can deliver much larger payloads more accurately than long-range missiles..."

Isn't that just as true when weapons of mass destruction are involved?

rshow55 - 06:18pm Feb 7, 2002 EST (#11341 of 11350)

gisterme:

"It seems unwise to wait until our adversaries have WMD-armed ballistic missiles before we begin developing a defense against them."

What's wrong with interdiction? We know how to do it - and, as Weinberg points out, it seems much more reliable than a BMD that is only barely plausible.

rshow55 - 06:20pm Feb 7, 2002 EST (#11342 of 11350)

With diplomacy, if the threats are N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq, would interdiction be so hard?

With diplomacy, would they be necessary?

gisterme - 07:39pm Feb 7, 2002 EST (#11343 of 11350)

rshow55 2/7/02 6:14pm

"...Isn't that just as true when weapons of mass destruction are involved?"

From our logical point of view it might seem that way Robert; but apparently not from theirs. Otherwise why wouldn't they be feeding their people rather than using the resources to try to get ballistic missiles instead. That's exactly what I said in the post you referenced. Can't you read?

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense