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?

almarst-2001 - 05:56pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6191 of 6196)

Missile defense major winner in Pentagon budget - http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=197954

"We've already identified companies that could do the work," said a BMDO official."

Surelly;)

almarst-2001 - 06:03pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6192 of 6196)

gisterme 6/27/01 5:22pm

"I don't believe anybody has proposed placing nuclear weapons on space platforms. That WOULD violate a treaty that nobody has even discussed changing so far as I know."

I see you assume just the US can abandon and violate treaties...

Then, what about a BM or a cruise missile in a canister quietly dropped from the "ordinary cargo ship" to the ocean floor 30 mi from the US shore to be started in a 24 hr?;)

almarst-2001 - 06:09pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6193 of 6196)

I think the non-nuclear deterrance against the US military machine is UNREALISTIC. From any responcible government point of view.

As for the terrorists, I think the biological warfare would be much more attractive.

gisterme - 06:10pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6194 of 6196)

almarst-2001 6/27/01 5:41pm almarst wrote: "...Three US Navy Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missiles (FBM), built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems--Missiles & Space Operations, were successfully launched..."

Correct me if I'm wrong, almarst, but I believe that the maximum number of launch vehicles and MIRV warheads/vehicle is limited by treaty for both the US and Russia. Unless the US builds another couple of Trident submarines (24 launchers per boat?) there would be no way for Trident xx missiles to replace the MXs. I've noticed no US plans to build more FBM submarines (though I'm sure that GD would love to). There are at most three shipyards in the country that have the capability to build FBM submarines. There's absolutely no way that FBM subs could be built secretly.

almarst-2001 - 06:14pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6195 of 6196)

gisterme 6/27/01 6:10pm

Again, what I see is an attempt to INCREASE the OFFENCIVE military capacity of US, not to DECREASE it. Some are nuclear, some not. But OFFENCIVE always.

rshowalter - 06:16pm Jun 27, 2001 EST (#6196 of 6196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There are innumerable ways to get nuclear charges to US cities -- and almarst just suggested another one -- of a very long list of possibilities.

Difficult as peace may be -- the complexities of defense make really effective defense, on a comprehensive basis impossible .

A classic military fact is this:

- set up an enemy to attack in a particular configuration (or defend in a particular configuration) -- and they may well be in a position where they are grossly undefended with respect to another kind of attack.

Standard combat tactics.

We need peace and we need to do the work to make it stable.

Nuclear weapons are nuts -- we should get rid of them.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense