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 - 07:08pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11543 of 11552)

"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 is such a problem. Maybe not.

It makes sense to "stick with" a project that is clearly feasible, but difficult, fighting through the bugs that often occur, even while minimizing risks (and those risks can be great, even on "simple" and "identified" problems -- a jet engine afterburner development series on the F-104 cost a team under Kelly Johnson seven planes and seven pilots , and Johnson had the best batting average anybody ever had.)

If there are too many problems -- if problems are so hard that they are insoluble, or nearly so, "sticking with" a technical approach can be suicidal.

Things can fall apart, and keep right on falling apart. So "stick with it" isn't always good advice. It can be a recipe for disaster.

For instance, the "scramjet" hypersonic ramjet program, where I looked at mixing problems in the early 1970's -- has plugged on since, with people "hoping against hope" - - just because they WANTED the thing to work so badly. The scramjet failed a test last year. It has hopeless mixing problems - - mixing isn't nearly fast enough to make an otherwise wonderful idea practical. There are plenty of times when good engineers make the decision to quit .

Could BMD programs be as bad as that? I'm afraid they might be.

"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. Others disagree, but I don't think that the BMD programs I've seen anything about are convergent, if judged by the standards tactical effectiveness takes.

rshow55 - 07:08pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11544 of 11552)

Deterrrence 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

"This presents a very different challenge from that of the cold war," Mr. Rumsfeld said in his testimony. "Even in the old Soviet Union, the secretary general of the Communist Party, dictator though he was, had a Politburo to provide some checks and balances that might have kept him from using those weapons at his whim.

"What checks and balances are there on Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il?" he asked, suggesting that the threat of retaliation would not deter unpredictable autocrats from using nuclear weapons. "None that we know of or can influence."

But his warnings did not appear to sway Democrats on the panel. Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, said, "We are basing some significant policy judgments on behavioral perceptions of regimes, and I think we have to do a little bit more work on sharpening those behavioral perceptions."

rshow55 - 07:15pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11545 of 11552)

I think that gisterme and I , who disagree on a great deal, do agree that we have to deal with the threats from WMD vigorously and effectively.

BMD is one approach. It is the subject of this thread, especially as now defined. (The topic has varied over time MD10759 rshow55 1/14/02 1:48pm )

Deterrance, interdiction, diplomacy, and international law enter into the mix of things we need to consider to lower our WMD risk, as well, and I'd be glad to discuss them, but hope we can talk some about the assumptions it seems to me Secretary Rumsfeld makes now.

gisterme - 07:47pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11546 of 11552)

Good posts, Robert, and I want to answer them as soon as I can. I hope you'll show some patience and not "bury" them before I do. I can't do it right this minute but may be able to do some later this evening. Not sure about tomorrow either but I'll try.

rshow55 - 07:55pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11547 of 11552)

Thanks, gisterme . I'm running tired, and have used up about all the focus I have for tonight. I hope you don't find me derelict in my duty ----- I'm having a beer, and knocking off.

gisterme , I believe that if we just got a few things straight, and some procedures fixed, we could do things we both want to do, in ways that most Americans, and most "readers of the New York Times" would approve of.

OUT.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense