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 - 06:23pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3615 of 3639)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

facts matter -- I'll be going slow for a little while.

Two points -- people are suggesting that the US do away with contractual relations for arms control -- if complex cooperation is the usual goal -- that makes no sense -- it assumes that everybody has a perfect, and identical memory -- which isn't true -- and assumes that people really trust the US -- which isn't true, and shouldn't be.

Doing away with treaties is a giant step backward - toward barbarism.

The rest of the world shouldn't tolerate it.

The other point is this -- among people, power, in large part, rests on ideas.

Ideas can be examined, and matched to circumstances.

gisterme - 07:11pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3616 of 3639)

artemis130 wrote: "...(You have different numbers? - please, go out and get them. I'm sure we'd all be interested in the truth.)"

Not at all artemis. I'm not trying to justify either side. What the KLA has done since they were "rescued" proves the point I was trying to make. No amount of outside intervention can solve that kind of problem. Forgive me if I seemed to take a side in what I said.

applez101 - 07:59pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3617 of 3639)

A quick examination of matters:

Assuming a suitable missile defense system is developed and deployed, it is universally accepted that it will be expensive.

What can we expect as a result:

a) The US and some of its allies may gain some cover from a missile threat

b) To simply maintain defense parity, numerous allies and erstwhile partners (Russia, China) will need to increase their missile capabilities...won't do much for a constructive US relationship.

c) Denial of a missile method of attack (the alleged aim of NMD) will promote R&D and possibly use of an 'unorthodox' form of attack on the US by aggressors.

d) The US will have huge budgetary constraints on its other branches, making early detection and successful defence against these 'unorthodox' methods unlikely.

e) Thus far, no reliable means has been developed to break a conspiracy of one...let alone two, as demonstrated at Columbine & Oklahoma City. The World Trade Center bombing also illustrates the reach and success of an even larger conspiracy that had blindsided US detectives.

f) The likeliest targets will remain those closest to aggressors. The record would indicate that the greatest threat to US civilians will be domestic terrorists, and heavy-handed methods do more harm than good (Waco). The record also shows that foreign aggressors will probably target US government assets abroad: military bases & personnel, and Embassy staff & infrastructure.

A military outlet may be isolated, minimizing 'collateral damage' (actually increasing its risk factor, I'd argue), but an Embassy needs to be connected with its host nation in order to operate effectively. Increased security infrastructure also harms its effective business (visas, US Citizen Services, representation & trade, etc.).

All in all, I don't think NMD is cost-effective. The most cost-effective WMD missile defense remains M.A.D., other than multilateral disarmament, but I consider that increasingly unlikely.

gisterme - 08:09pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3618 of 3639)

alarmst wrote: "...But I would stop here, unless there is an interest to continue..."

alarmst, the victims in Iraq today are vicitms of Saddam just like most of the casualties of WWII were victims of Hitler.

Can you feel much compassion for a world leader like Saddam who can chop one of his government ministers into pieces? Then when the man's wife begs Saddam to return her husband, he does, as pieces in a bloody bag? I can't.

I'm as sorry as you for all the suffering that the people of Iraq have endured. I hope something happens there that can get Iraq back onto a path toward true prosperity; but don't try to persuade me of what a nice guy Saddam is or that his behavior has nothing to do with the current plight of the Iraqi people. All Saddam had to do to get sanctions lifted was be honest in dealing with the UN WMD inspectors for a while, until they eventually went away. Just the things agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

shrikamala - 08:15pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3619 of 3639)

Missile defense is about the US maintaining and expanding world hegemony. Almost every other country on the planet is opposed to the plan. It will scrap the international arms control treaties. And what is offered as replacement? The US as world cop (and robber). We are losing respect and the ability to lead- to wit, our expulsion from the UN Human Rights Commission. Now is the time to stop Star Wars, before it is funded and deployed.

artemis130 - 08:18pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3620 of 3639)
caveat venditor

paulistano - 05:59pm May 9, 2001 EST (#3612 of 3617)

Moreover, while a missle defense is costly when compared to preparing for a biological or similar attack, there is no logical reason to refrain from preparing for both.

Obviously, you didn't read my previous post. The intangible risks are there, and I'd propose that they're greater than the rewards. It's not about money - it's about how threats to this country are assessed and how they're reduced. A logical protocol is needed, not some off the cuff defense strategy (yes, I propose that's what it is.) For every DOD or other study you quote, I'll find two that contradict it.

I propose that the risks are TOO GREAT to not open up such a fundamental issue as U.S. foreign and defense policy to a robust debate and yes, even referendum.

I'm no lover of Gore but the facts are that if Bush had outlined in detail his now-emerging policies on defense and named Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as his appointments before the elections, I dare say he'd never have made it to the White House.

Further fact is, if I'm called as defense witness in a criminal case and the police think I may be threatened - they have an obligation to provide some form of protection, IF I REQUEST IT! If I refuse, they have no further say in the matter.

Why is this different?

(19 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense