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 - 11:41am May 8, 2001 EST (#3505 of 3514)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It is worth pointing out, however, that the simple act of checking details can greatly reduce the destabilization. Because missile defense isn't workable . . . for the forseeable future. It is dangerous, for all concerned, for nations being forced into adversarial positions to assume things that are false.

As a practical matter, "fear itself" is one main thing to fear from the current missile defense initiative.

The other main thing to be concerned about is US good will, technical competence, and sanity. A system that is a technical fraud is being presented, under false pretenses, very actively, by a group of people who have taken control of the forces of the United States. Everyone ought to be concerned about that.

But there's something to hope for, too. People are now looking hard at military matters, including especially matters involving nuclear weapons. That provides some opportunities for peace.

Even taking the Bush administration at the worst reasonable interpretation --- they are only so dangerous -- and their power is only as big as it is. If they succeed in unifying much of the rest of the world in favor of peace and balanced military forces, great good might come, even with the Bush administration acting very badly.

If the Bush administration acted well -- very great good might come -- really increased security, for the US and the whole world, radically reduced nuclear risks, and better things for all sorts of people all over the world.

hires - 11:48am May 8, 2001 EST (#3506 of 3514)

great, a new round of worldwide arms buildup, requiring "great expense". just what we need.

how can defending orbiting satelites justify this?

is anyone any safer for this? is our country better defended? are we better for being the first to put weapons in space?

this should never be, and won't be funded.

fritzi24 - 11:50am May 8, 2001 EST (#3507 of 3514)

If this is the Bush Administration's idea of revamping and improving the Armed Services, then it seems our leaders have been reading too many Buck Rogers comic books or they have a closet fascination with duplicating "Star Wars" deathstars, walkers, etc. Just who is this science fiction nonsense supposed to deter. The only country even remotely capable of initiating an anti-satellite program combined with a first-strike capability was the Soviet Union - now dissolved. Rump Russia doesn't have the economy to do it. China does not have the economy or technology to do it. Iran, Iraq, North Korea - we're talking here the possibility of one or two low technology missiles - which our spy satellites should detect long on the ground BEFORE they are ever launched. Europe - the French, in their imaginations, might like to do it but they lack the total resources. Germany - decades away. Great Britain - its within their capabilities if they ever want to really start asserting themselves, but don't hold your breath so long as Labor rules. So who is this fantasy designed to fight against?

What the military needs to fight the REALISTIC threats that will surface in the next thirty years are: a new generation of aircraft carrier - 50,000 tons maximum, cheaper to build, which can carry a sixty to seventy-five plane air group (why not update the old "Midway" CVA design?); lots of smaller escorts - call them corvettes, sloops, what have you - no more than 3,000 tons, ASW and AA capable (design the armaments system as a package module which can be installed or removed as needed - the Germans and Dutch already have plans for this concept); CONVENTIONAL submarines - electric power; a 35 to 40 ton tank which mounts a 120 mm main gun - British Vickers has had one for export sales for almost a decade; a less complicated tube artillery system; funds specifcally devoted to TRAINING and UPGRADING TROOP LIVING AREAS; a far less expensive fighter than the new wonder jet - an upgraded F-15 would fill the bill for several decades. And scrap the bloody Osprey - it's junk and will kill more Marines than it will ever transport.

rshowalter - 11:57am May 8, 2001 EST (#3508 of 3514)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I agree that the US needs a defense that fits real needs.

And that exists in a balanced world -- the only kind of world that can support sustained peace -- without a US tyranny that is neither possible nor desireable.

rshowalter - 11:59am May 8, 2001 EST (#3509 of 3514)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The world shouldn't just sit back and accept a totally unbalanced situation.

Suppose that much of the rest of the world, looking at US behavior, and regarding negligent homicide by US military forces as a substantial human rights concern, gets together and takes some steps against the US.

Imposing COSTS on negligent homicide by US forces. If a large number of nations agreed on how this was done, it could be done, perhaps by an imposition of fees. Fees could, as a practical matter, be collected without any agreement of participation of the United States, if a reasonable number of nations wanted that to happen.

Imposing COSTS on US military actions now routine, or planned -- foreign bases don't have to stay open, and "national control" of sea areas, land areas and associated air space doesn't have to be the same for commercial and military vehicles. Nor would penalties for violation of space have to be disproportionate -- there could be a financial charge for violation of claimed space. If a large number of nations agreed on how this was done, it could be done,and fees could, as a practical matter, be collected without any agreement of participation of the United States.

Many other things might be done to establish some balance, by nations together.

In addition, the US population is now very vulnerable, far more than before, in ways where nuclear weapons offer no protection.

Peace requires balance. There ought to be a number of ways to move toward balance even if the US were prepared to completely flaunt world opinion.

If the U.S. lived up to its own rhetoric, and wanted to be respected by other nations, a world leader, and a force for prosperity and peace, there would be more ways.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense