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?

jimmcd53 - 02:39pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4440 of 4466)

To gisterme, that is EXACTLY Frederick's point and it is mine as well. Toward the end of my post I said as much. I have no objection in principle to trying to protect cities or a continent, but if we try to do that we won't have an umbrella but a sieve and we'll wind up with, for all practical purposes, no defense at all. Our real security is in our forward deployed military assets, primarily those afloat, and that's where we need to concentrate our missile defenses so that those forces will be able to operate freely. If we can protect anything at all, we ought to be able to protect something the size of an aircraft carrier. If we can't, how can we pretend we can protect a city?

rshowalt - 02:57pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4441 of 4466)

" Our real security is in our forward deployed military assets, primarily those afloat . . . "

How so? In the current world, that doesn't seem to fit at all. Is American at risk of being invaded? By whom? Are the high seas unsafe for American shipping, or anybody else's peaceful shipping - in any way that justifies even 5% of our navy?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The question "what is America's military budget there for is a very good question -- that is much less to be taken for granted than it used to be.

The Cold War is over -- and though the US, like any other nation state, faces challenges and threats, it is far less clear than it used to be that our military is well suited for handling them. And even less clear that more high explosives - delivered with indifferent accuracy from a distance, is going to help matters.

There's another question -- how many of the people who house our forward bases actually want us there -- or feel we have valid reasons for being there?

rshowalt - 03:00pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4442 of 4466)

This much is clear -- fewer than when the Bush administration took office.

gisterme - 03:03pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4443 of 4466)

richsuth wrote (WRT BMD): "...It is corporate welfare being promoted by one of the most nefarious liars ever to occupy the White House. Is this the beginning of our irreversible decline as a nation? Are we so stupid that we can be so easily manipulated?..."

Based on what you've said here, richsuth, you seem to have been manipulated all right, but not by those whom you accuse. Your comment is all emotion, drawing conclusions not based on substance.

Even at $100 billion spent over ten years on a BMD, that could hardly be called "corporate welfare". Especially when corporate capital in the US is turned at the rate of multiple trillions per year. That's an example of what I mean by "not based on substance" WRT your comment, richsuth.

You may feel that this president is one the most neferious liars ever to occupy the white house, richsuth, but at least he hasn't been impeached for lying under oath. That pretty much rules him out for the #1 spot as the "most". As a matter of fact, except for a few folks like you, folks that aren't quite ready to substantiate their claims, I haven't noticed that president Bush has been accused of lying at all. If the president were lying about something, do you think that Senator Daschle or the New York Times would fail to notice? Not likely, richsuth.

possumdag - 03:10pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4444 of 4466)
Possumdag@excite.com

MOX

Public opinion in Japan has hardened against the use of Mox, which combines plutonium recycled from spent fuel with uranium, since BNFL admitted in September 1999 to falsifying quality control records for Mox shipped to Kansai Electric Power Company. www.ft.com

possumdag - 03:16pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4445 of 4466)
Possumdag@excite.com

SHORTS: Pakistan raises US fears about nuclear proliferation Financial Times; Jun 1, 2001

The US government is concerned that Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme could be spreading nuclear capabilities to other states, notably North Korea. Page 11

{Pakistan deny this}

aurelio23a - 03:22pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4446 of 4466)

As a rogue nation, I can hardly wait to see the US and its allies build the Missile Defense System. It will keep them busy for a generation at least, and will leave them impoverished and frustrated. Meanwhile, I am going ahead with special research on ways and means to attack the United States and its allies. I am not going to bother with intercontinental missile technology. I shall concentrate on my ocean current carrier weapon systems. My jet stream and air mass diffusion weapons. My molecular size robots, my weather control centers, my airplane tire contaminants, my version of the mad cow disease but applied to human beings and a toothache-causing enzyme delivered through polen, Monarch butterflies or “Made in China” labels.

jimmcd53 - 04:29pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4447 of 4466)

To rshowalt -- The best defense is a good offense, and the best way to deter potential troublemakers is to make certain they know we can hit back quickly and decisively wherever we have to. And you are correct about our forward deployed bases not being welcome in a lot of countries in which they are located. In fact, I would argue that by being where they are a lot of them can contribute to political instability in places where the last thing we want is political instability. That's why I'm a navalist. We can't have a lot of those assets permanently stationed on land. We can have them at sea, close to where they are needed and mobile. And we need to be able to reinforce them by air and sea from secure installations further back.

er3book - 04:33pm Jun 1, 2001 EST (#4448 of 4466)

The real issue is not if a proposed ABM defense will work, but whether or not it is needed. Rogue states and terrorists may well attack the US in the future, but the attack will probably carry no fingerprints (such as the detectable launch of an ICBM) that would evoke nuclear retaliation. Chemical, nuclear or biological devices can be carried in ships, landbridge containers, or aircraft, to name just a few possibilities.

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense