New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 08:04am May 2, 2001 EST (#2959 of 2996)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In Strategy Overhaul, Bush Seeks a Missile Shield by DAVID E. SANGER and STEVEN LEE MYERS http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/02/world/02PREX.html

"WASHINGTON, May 1 — President Bush called today for sweeping changes in security strategy, including a new relationship with Russia, that would build an expansive missile defense system and cut "to the lowest possible number" the nuclear arsenals that both sides assembled in the cold war.

"Mr. Bush also did not discuss the possible cost of his "layered" system, which would build on existing technologies like Aegis ship-borne radar and missile-firing systems and also use untested technologies like airborne or space-based lasers.

There's no reason to believe that this approach has any chance of working. The limitations of Aegis radar illustrate, and should illustrate vividly, how far-fetched the idea is.

"The system would be highly limited. It would do nothing, for example, to protect against a small nuclear or biological device brought into the United States or Europe in a suitcase or on an airplane. And it would clearly not be 100 percent effective against missiles, meaning that the threat of massive retaliation would still be a central principle of American nuclear doctrine.

"Mr. Rumsfeld dismissed such criticism, arguing that early versions could be effective even if imperfect.

That's a quantitative question. How imperfect? There's no evidence that anything built, or even sketched, can work at all.

> "Army officials have told Mr. Rumsfeld's aides that they could accelerate development of the ground- based system, with a sophisticated radar station and at least five interceptor missiles in Alaska, and have it ready by 2004, officials said.

2004 is a long time away -- and delays in these systems are usual.

"A senior administration official said the most promising approach in the near future appeared to be the Airborne Laser Program, being developed by Boeing, Lockheed Martin and TRW and promoted as the first laser-armed combat aircraft. The contractors plan to test the system, a multimegawatt oxygen-iodine laser mounted on a retrofitted 747, in 2003.

This is nowhere close to being useful for missile defense. The information flows for aiming aren't there.

"Although the president spoke of "promising options," there are many questions about technological feasibility.

When I suggest that the work, operationally, is "as devoid of merit as a herringfish is of fur" does anyone contradict that.

"The ground-based interceptor rocket at the heart of the Pentagon program has had test failures. Another test, copying a failed one in July, is scheduled soon. The other programs are untested.

Translation: We're being polite, but not one damn thing works.

"We fear the president may be buying a lemon here," said the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "There has not been a shred of evidence that this works."

I wonder how Americans would react, if someone, at the level where they make personal decisions, set out to sell them something very expensive, and potentially lethal to them if it didn't work, on this basis. Suppose it was done on the basis of a very hard sell?

I'd be angry.

speedbird77 - 08:20am May 2, 2001 EST (#2960 of 2996)

For decades, arms control advocates have been pleading for reductions in the US arsenal. Now that Bush wants to actually reduce these warheads, we are told that it will lead to proliferation or worse.

The US military has other priorities. Spending billions of dollars just to maintain the fleet in a world which is much different today is not practical.

In short, the US wants to reduce its current inventory of some 7000 warheads to approximately 1500. You would think that arms control advocates would be jumping for joy but it now seems they can never be satisfied.

Their assertion that the ABM treaty is the "cornerstone of arms control" is pure rubbish.

It was signed decades ago with a nation that no longer exists and in a time when mutually assured destruction was the accepted strategy.

It did not however stop the Soviets from constructing an ABM system around Moscow and it should not stop the US from ridding itself of thousands of nuclear warheads.

The future belongs to those who can envision it.

Large powerful all encompassing defensive systems are the future.

speedbird77 - 08:24am May 2, 2001 EST (#2961 of 2996)

We did not reach the moon in a week and we will not build missile defense in a week.

However, shouldn't we begin somewhere?

Where would this great nation be if we had thrown up our hands in submission in the face of great undertakings.

nemo0 - 08:43am May 2, 2001 EST (#2962 of 2996)
Man has lost the ability to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth. - Albert Schweitzer

speedbird77, wrote, "However, shouldn't we begin somewhere?"

Absolutely. We should begin by errecting a large mirror, and as the nation, we should take a long, hard look at ourselves. We must scrutinize, how on earth, we have found ourselves reeling backwards, with a most ignorant, ill-selected "leader" at the helm.

In case you haven't noticed, since Junior's selection, the world's political climate has been aggitated to a frightening degree. In regions where diplomacy was making real headway (albeit more slowly than impatient minds might like) much of that work has been dissolved. Shamefully, most of this can be attributed to the new administrations' tone of negativity, cased in arrogance, fear, and greed.

It takes no social science research to get the general "vibe" the new inept administration, "led" by the dubious Junior. The world gives us their feedback, daily.

Synopsis: We're not making any friends out there, and those of whom we considered friends are suddenly becoming quiet, or even worse, speaking out against us.

The question is not one of "missile defense," but rather how can we best engage fruitful diplomacy among a world that is growing increasingly smaller. Without question, the first response is to rid our Republic of the inappropriate "leader" so dubiously chosen. We need a leader with tremendous intellect as we move into the 21st century. Shamefully, we currently have "daddy's boy," Bush, Jr. We, as Americans, are scorned by the world for his taking the throne, and rightfully so.

REMOVE BUSH, JR. FROM THE WHITE HOUSE!

(34 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense