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 - 08:13am Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11911 of 11915)

Here is the FAREWELL ADDRESS of President Dwight D. Eisenhower January 17, 1961. http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm

I believe Eisenhower would have been much more concerned than he was (and he was VERY concerned) had he forseen more of the future.

Eisenhower was not a flawless man. He was a cold eyed, analytical killer when he had to be. But Eisenhower was a man with a sense of proportion, whenever he could be.

Within his limitations Eisenhower had a great respect for fact, and a sense of what was worth defending about the United States.

He also knew how ugly the consequences of mistakes could be, and checked his work as best he could.

He'd have known what to do about the terrible mass of muddles, pretensions, and waste that is now, and has long been, the US "missile defense" program.

MD11896 rshow55 2/27/02 5:40pm

Edison would have known what to do, too. The idea of BMD should be pursued -- if anybody has an idea about it that can possibly work. No such idea has been so much as mentioned on this thread. The projects the US is now pursuing can't possibly work, and should be abandoned. The people and organizations devoted to them should be redeployed.

The claim that "spin-offs will justify the work" -shouldn't be used as an excuse. That claim has almost never been justified by past experience. (It is hard enough to hit what you aim at, and DOD's record for "spinoffs justifying projects" has been miserable. That has been documented.)

There is no reasonable justification for the massive waste, distortion of American interests, and associated fraud that now characterize "missile defense" .

(By now, whatever "good faith mistakes" may have been made in the past, fraud is a fair word.)

The current heading of this thread asks:

"Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful (than before)?

No. ... MD11896 rshow55 2/27/02 5:40pm

manjumicha2001 - 11:09am Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11912 of 11915)

So then, what do you think US should do regarding NK ICBM/WM capabilities?

1. Nuke them first

2. Complete embargo of NK sea routes & most harsh sanctions regime unilaterally enforced.

3. negotiated seettlement: NK gets normalization of relationships plus World Bank loans for stopping exports and overt threat of their WM/ICBM program.

rshow55 - 11:15am Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11913 of 11915)

Similar questions apply to the case of Iraq (where the mess is largely of our making) and Iran (where the mess, again, is largely of our making.)

I'll be back in half an hour. For now, a general question.

How do you take down a mess?

You look carefully at the instabilities that are actually there, the flexibilities that are actually there, and take down the mess with as little collateral damage as possible. For this, you have to count, and take some care. Folks who blow old buildings do it pretty well. We need to deal with other dangers with similar competence - and a mix of force, coordination, and grace.

Back in half an hour.

rshow55 - 11:46am Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11914 of 11915)

First point, I think you know. None of options 1-3 in manjumicha2001 2/28/02 11:09am is acceptable to the United States, a nation that has to go on living in the world, after it acts.

Whatever we do, we have to be able to live with (and live with ourselves about.)

There has to be a clear, careful accounting of constraints (things that cannot be violated at all, for one reason or another) and actions with costs.

Once constraints are clear, problems often simplify in a very hopeful way.

Remember that N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran, and all other nations have constraints and costs, too. And inflexibilities that are likely to be at least as great (God help us) as those that face the United States as it is. That's both hopeful, and a source of danger.

And solutions that have reasonable hope of success have to obey some simple rules -- and be simple and stable. Patterns that guarantee chaos ought to be recognized as such.

I'm going to make an assumption. The assumption is that the United States has decided that it will not permit Iran, Iraq, or N. Korea to threaten the United States, or its allies, with weapons of mass destruction.

I think that's a reasonable position for the US to take, if some other things can be satisfied -- so that it works for the world we actually live in, and cannot escape.

Do you agree with the assumption bolded above?

At the risk of cliche, I'd like to point out how very rapidly the funtion n! grows as the number of things being put together in combination increases. Stability is hard to get, and very precious. Especially when risks of mass death are involved, as they are here.

(more coming in another half an hour.)

rshow55 - 11:59am Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11915 of 11915)

While I'm working, I'm I'm posting these wonderful links from Dawn Riley's MD7544 lunarchick 7/28/01 4:18pm ...: because they are beautiful.

Order's important. Human values are important.

(Back by 12:15).

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense