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?

markojhu - 08:59am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4420 of 4466)

They say we can't get the technology by 2004? Well, I say if Bush went ahead and ignored the treaty and contracted all the Universities and contractors out there, we could have this thing done pretty soon. We're not idiots over hear. In fact, I believe that we already have the technology left over from the 80's but we can't just go around telling people. We are obliged to say that we "don't have the technology" simply to keep other countries calm. The point is, as soon as we release a 100 percent effective missle defense system, we're not taking offense, we're taking defense for the entire world. If someone shoots a missle off anywhere in the world, we will be able to destroy it. Hey look at that, no more threat of nuclear war. YAAAAAAAA!!! The only thing is, is we have to actually start working on a system that can be as powerful as I was talking about. But I think we can do that, its not too hard

jimmcd53 - 09:19am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4421 of 4466)

While we cannot let the Russians or Euroweenies or anyone else dictate policy to us, it would be a mistake to tear up the ABM teaty and related agreements. Colin Powell's challenge on this front is to keep them intact for the sake of stability in international affairs while securing adjustments that will make it possible for us to go ahead with research and development without violating anything. That would be the ideal situation.

But the main problem with the missile defense concept laid out by the Bush Administration is that it is inefficient and ultimately of less value than other things we could do. Imagine, conservative Republicans advocating waste!

I think it was Frederick the Great who said that he who defends everything defends nothing. Why do we have to keep learning the same old lessons all over again?

Power projection, to the extent that we will have to use it, depends on a robust Navy-Marine Corps team always close enough to all potential hot spots to arrive quickly with enough force to make a big difference right away. Backing that up we need an Army and Air Force that can move in like lightning when heavyweight reinforcement is needed. Missile defense systems, which we should continuously improve, should be concentrated to protect our forward deployed assets.

If anybody wants a more elaborate argument, rather than take up a lot of space here I'll refer them to to www.hackworth.com where they'll find an archived Defending America column entitled "Rumsfeld Wall Won't Defend America."

timcole2 - 09:34am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4422 of 4466)

Only in this day in age, will Americans call the President Mr. Bush. That is an utter disrespect and I cannot believe this would be printed in the New York Times. America will not wake up and come together unless we have another war or get bombed. Only then will we have the American ideology of the days of old.

smartalix - 10:31am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4423 of 4466)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

"The days of old"?

How does M.A.D. come into play with an accidental launch or terrorists who would gladly be "destroyed"?

Number one, the likelyhood of an accidental launch in the forseeable future is low. In the case of the Russians, they would have to re-target their missiiles to threated the US, not an accident scenario, and in the case of China, their missiles take several days to prep for launch. No other country that is even a marginal threat to us at this time has ICBM cpability. It is easier to make the bomb than the ICBM to launch it.

As far as terrorism goes, one of the biggest arguments against missile defense is that a terrorist group will not launch an ICBM, they would sail a boat into NY Harbor.

We should continue to research missile defense, however, and if we do deploy once we have a working system, we should only do so as part of a multilateral peace initiative.

vyseguys0 - 10:41am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4424 of 4466)

I didn't pick up in Sen. Levin's missle defense comments much different than the administrations in that he wants robust studies. But I sure did notice his dramatic difference with his majority leaders comment that the Bush missle defense plan was "finished". But lets at least have a limited defense for Florida and Maryland. Why just there you ask? Please tell Sen. Daschle thats where my grandchildren live.

ktaucer01 - 11:08am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4425 of 4466)

Finally! Someone who is willing to say what the majority of Americans already know about Star Wars Jr.- The damn thing won't work and is simply just another Republican boondoggle for their rich but unscrpulous supporters. Good for Senator Levin he's not letting any of the Ultra's scare tactics, threats or ravings interfer with his common sense.

mrlyrics - 11:53am Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4426 of 4466)

So, the President believes that the National Missile Defense should be deployed even if its not 100% effective. Fine, no defense is perfect. But so far, we've failed on two of three tests, and the one success was accidental. How useful is a "defense" that is unsuccessful 67% of the time... that will allow two of of every three missles through?

Not that viability really matters. The idea of any missile defense is foolish because it will only encourage those rougue countries that can build missiles, to build ever more believing (quite rightly so) that they can overwhelm our feeble system. Other countries will simply hatch other schemes to inflict damage on the U.S., if they're so inclined, by assembling and detonating weapons of mass destruction -- be they chemical or biological -- within or close to our borders, sidestepping this 21st Century version of the Maginot Line altogether.

It's not really missile defense we're building, it's corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex.

(40 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense