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.

manjumicha2001 - 05:45pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11859 of 11881)

Well, you have fully convinced me that NK desperately needs better TV programing....:-). Surely beer and coke commercials will go a long way toward that, that is if they got beer and coke companies to advertise.

Anyway since you seem to have real aptitude in picking relevant NYT articles from the achives, why not look for one dealing with the suspected open-air test explosions of nuclear trigerring devices in 1998. The funny part is that they conducted such tests in broad daylight in full view of US satellite. I guess either NKs are really dumb or they want US to see certain aspect of their activities?

Again, you show another example of the faith-like dogma that "since we can see "everything" over there with our satellites, we must know what they are doing." I wonder what NSC guys were watching before they saw the solid third stage booster being seperated in 1998. It is funny that we saw reports about NK tepodong ICBMs in 1996 but such facts didn't register with the "western authorities" until 1998. And even then, its threat was continuously downplayed through the media spin while providing enough ammo for MD crowd in their "confidential briefings."

manjumicha2001 - 05:52pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11860 of 11881)

Just curious, was there another faith/dogma that I detected? i.e.

Lack of decent TV programing plus ridiculous 50s style gross propaganda on a authomatic flight equals lack of NK sophistication on military hardware?

manjumicha2001 - 05:54pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11861 of 11881)

Btw, just because NK did not shoot off missles once every week over Japan doesn't mean they are not "testing" their missles, no?

manjumicha2001 - 05:57pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11862 of 11881)

So many questions, so little time. . .

rshow55 - 06:17pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11863 of 11881)

1) The N. Koreans can make fission bombs - - as many as they have fissionable material for. Wish it was harder, but it isn't. Never said that N. Korea couldn't make nuclear weapons. The sad fact is that H-bombs aren't all that hard either, anymore. There are good reasons to want to very much limit weapons of mass destruction -- and if we were willing to significantly limit our own, we'd have an easier time limiting those of others.

2) -- Building effective missiles is harder than building nukes. And there are major correllations between a nation's technical competence in different areas. At the levels that matter for missile technology, I would say that " Lack of decent TV programing plus ridiculous 50s style gross propaganda on a authomatic flight" does imply a definite "lack of NK sophistication on military hardware."

3) How much testing has anyone discussed ? The reporting I've seen indicates that the N. Koreans have pretty minimal capabilities.

The N. Koreans have real troubles -- they have trouble feeding their people, and keeping them warm -- and depending on accounting, they have something less than 1/10 - maybe less than 1/20th - the per capita income of the South Koreans. With that much of a "behavioral deficit" - I doubt that they can be too impressive as missile designers or fabricators.

almarst-2001 - 07:11pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11864 of 11881)

On N.K.

Troubles due to "behavioral deficit"?

1. Isn't it true that after WWII, the Japan's reparations went only to S.K?

2. Isn't it true that US-Korean war affected the N.K. much more then the South?

3. Isn't it true that S.K. benefitted from direct and indirect US capital investments, investment's guarantees and trade while N.K. suffered under strict economical embargo and isolation? Wasn't it pushed to the corner economically?

4. Isn't it true that N.K. could feel treatened by the massive US presence in the South? Does anyone think that N.K. may have a legitimate reson to believe it needs a credible deterrance against a superpower it remains officially at war?

5. What would guarantee the N.K. defence if US decides to attack it?

6. Why should the US be more concerned about N.K. WMD then the N.K. about the US thousend's times greater arsenal of WMD?

7. What would be ascenario when N.K. commits a suicidal act of attacking the US, other then if the US attacks the N.K.?

almarst-2001 - 07:11pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11865 of 11881)

Majority of Muslims polled view U.S. unfavorably - http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/26/gallup.muslims/index.html

rshow55 - 07:44pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11866 of 11881)

almarst-2001 2/26/02 7:11pm . . . and the US has to care. There is an opportunity here, for both trade and peacemaking, for other nations -- and taking advantage of that opportunity would make the whole world safer.

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense