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.

gisterme - 03:04pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11538 of 11552)

rshow55 2/14/02 1:51pm

"...If effective countermeasures against a class of BMD systems is something like a million times cheaper to develop than the BMD system itself, that's not a "keepable secret."..."

No doubt about it, Robert. If such effective contermeasures existed or were known to be possible, it would be no secret, as you've suggested. Part of the expense of any human endeavor, military or otherwise is to overcome known obstacles that may block the road to success. A lot also has to do with anticipation and discovery of unknown obstacles that usually come along with the exploration of new territory.

"...Nor is it a secret to keep from Congress, or the American people..."

Right again. If such effective contermeasures existed or were known to be possible, it would be no secret, as you've suggested.

rshow55 2/14/02 1:51pm

kangdawei 9/29/01 4:27am

That is an excellent post, Robert.

"...Rumsfeld makes assumptions, as we all must. Are his assumptions correct? It is a high-stakes question..."

http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2001/009.html

You asked the question, Robert. Why don't you try to answer it? What assumptions does Mr. Rumsfeld make in that transcript? List them, but; please be honest. Everybody can see the source.

If you'll do that it may lead to some very interesting and on topic posts.

I'd do it myself if I had more time. If you won't or can't list the "high stakes assumptions", I will if I get more available time.

Getting more time... that seems a strange occupation. How does one go about that? How could we add one minute to each hour? Hmmm. :-)

rshow55 - 03:27pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11539 of 11552)

gisterme , I'm paying attention -- and paying careful attention to your gisterme 2/14/02 3:40am , as well - - especially the last few paragraphs.

We have a lot of common ground on how serious the risks from WMD are -- and how we, as a nation have to do anything we reasonably can to lower those risks -- and pay what we have to to do it effectively.

That means what we do has to work, in the real dirty world as it is - with some nuts out there as crazy as they are.

Since what we do has to work, we need to ask questions intelligently about what can't work.

We're agreed that doing nothing can't work -- and I haven't ever intended to suggest doing nothing -- except as a "baseline" for comparisons of other actions.

BMD is one approach. Deterrance, interdiction, diplomacy, and international law enter into the mix, as well.

I'm taking my time, trying to get some things right.

rshow55 - 04:33pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11540 of 11552)

While I'm working, we have some common ground, and I'd like to extend it a bit

"...If effective countermeasures against a class of BMD systems is something like a million times cheaper to develop than the BMD system itself, that's not a "keepable secret."..."

gisterme: .... "No doubt about it, Robert." . . .

"...Nor is it a secret to keep from Congress, or the American people..."

gisterme: Right again.

I feel that the same would apply if "a million times" were some smaller number (such as "a hundred thousand times" or "ten thousand times.")

Gisterme might agree.

If NMD cost 200 billion, a million times lower cost would be 200,000$ -- a hundred thousand times lower cost would be 2 million, ten thousand times lower cost would be 20 million.

For the ABL system, and the midcourse interception system, still under development, set out in "The Coyle Report" -- National Missile Defense Deployment Readiness Review -- 10 August 2000 --- 200,000$, though it seems a piddling sum, might, in my judgement, buy a lot of countermeasure development, and deployment. More money would buy more.

My judgement might be wrong - - but the reasons behind the judgement are pretty clear -- and some are set out already on this thread.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense