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 - 06:49pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11541 of 11552)

Gisterme and I agree that the body of arguments for BMD set out by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and cited and quoted by kangdawei MD9893 kangdawei 9/29/01 4:27am is a good one. I suggested that the assumptions in the passage are key ones, and gisterme asked me to list them. Here, I think, are key assumptions Secretary Rumsfeld makes:

1. The assumption that "sticking with it" is always a good answer.

2. The assumption that we have a correct and complete understanding of deterrence and responses to threat fit to the situations we're thinking about.

3. The assumption that we will gain by backing missile defense even if we can't convince people that MD is credible, and make it work.

The passage quoted below is from kangdawei MD9893 kangdawei 9/29/01 4:27am , and is taken from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on National Missile Defense Testing http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2001/009.html , which has additional language.

Rumsfeld: "Senator, I would really like to avoid setting up hurdles on this subject. I think back -- I was reading the book "Eye in the Sky," about the Corona program and the first overhead satellite, and recalling that it failed something like 11, 12, or 13 times during the Eisenhower administration and the Kennedy administration. And they stuck with it, and it worked, and it ended up saving billions of dollars in -- because of the better knowledge we achieved."

" Sticking with it" is only a good answer if you have a problem you can reasonably hope to bring to convergence. Not all problems are like that. It is assumed that BMD will yeild satisfactory performance, after enough work. For the levels tactical performance is going to take, that may not be true. (more below)

Rumsfeld "In this case, if I could just elaborate for a moment, the principle of deterrence, it seems to me, goes to what's in the minds of people who might do you harm and how can you affect their behavior.

Deterrence is a vital issue, and there are bodies of assumptions here - with considerable disagreement on what is real. Some were discussed in Skeptical Senators Question Rumsfeld on Missile Defense by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/politics/22MILI.html (more below)

Rumsfeld: The problem with ballistic missiles, with weapons of mass destruction, even though they may be a low probability, as the chart that Senator Levin, I believe, mentioned suggests, the reality is, they work without being fired. They alter behavior.

Yes, but how? Is "nuclear blackmail" as effective as Secretary Rumsfeld thinks? In the ways he thinks?

Rumsfeld: "If you think back to the Gulf War, if Saddam Hussein, a week before he invaded Kuwait, had demonstrated that he had a ballistic missile and a nuclear weapon, the task of trying to put together that coalition would have been impossible. There's no way you could have persuaded the European countries that they should put themselves at risk to a nuclear weapon. People's behavior changes if they see those capabilities out there.

My own sense is that if Saddam Hussien had threatened people with nukes, he would have been on the receiving end of a stronger, more determined, much tougher coalition. Animals, when threatened, may cower, though they sometimes fight. People, when threatened beyond a certain point, are very likely to fight -- even fight suicidally. I think we're making assumptions about threat responses that are wrong - sometimes "optimistic" -- sometimes "pessimistic" -- but very often wrong.

Rumsfeld: I think we need missile defense because I think it devalues people having that capability, and it enables us to do a much better job with respect to our a

rshow55 - 07:07pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11542 of 11552)

Rumsfeld: I think we need missile defense because I think it devalues people having that capability, and it enables us to do a much better job with respect to our allies.

The assumptions here hinge on the question of whether or not the missile defense is credible, and responds to threats thought to be credible. If the US places big bets that look stupid, and fail, it loses credibility, and is weakened militarily. So far, it is hard to argue that issues related to missile defense have permitted the Bush administration to do a "much better job with respect to its allies."

Rumsfeld: Now, finally, I don't think many weapons systems arrive full-blown. Senator Levin or somebody mentioned "phased" and "layered." Those are phrases that I think people, not improperly, use to suggest that things don't start and then suddenly they're perfect. What they do is they -- you get them out there, and they evolve over time, and they improve.

If the technical situation is convergent - if the basic jobs involved are technically realistic -- convergence happens - but plenty of projects aren't convergent -- can't be made to work satisfactorily at any reasonable price in effort of time.

Rumsfeld: And so success -- you know, this isn't the old "Star Wars" idea of a shield that'll keep everything off of everyone in the world. It is something that in the beginning stages is designed to deal with handfuls of these things and persuade people that they're not going to be able to blackmail and intimidate the United States and its friends and allies.

There is an assumption of feasibility here, and also an assumption that our allies are "easy to intimidate" by the likes of N. Korea or Iraq. Historically, political leaders who assume people are "easy to intimidate" have made some very bad mistakes -- I think they basically misjudge how tough (even irrationally tough) people actually are.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense