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?

regeya - 08:22pm Jul 2, 2001 EST (#6438 of 6440)

The missile threat that can destroy humanity comes from the Russian arsenal, which is linked to an unreliable early warning system. In fact, this is still the way that civilization is most likely to end - and it would take less than 30 minutes. An accidental nuclear exchange is possible. There have been several close calls already, including the one in January 1995 in which the Russians came within eight minutes of launching their arsenal, in response to what turned out to be a civil satelite launch in Norway.

Want to add more unknown variables to such an unstable system and see where it leads?

If the Russians re-introduce their MIRVs (which they would in response the the US unilaterally bulding an anti-missle system), the Russian system becomes even more unstable. And that would be only one factor in the arms race that would follow and likely involve China as well.

An all of this, why? to reduce a potential threat from rogue terrorist states?! Why would a rogue state resort to using ICBMs whose origin can be tracked? I think that they prefer to continue sneaking their weapons to their targets. Better for the terrorists if we get distracted with missile defense. Better for our security if we continue to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that can terminate our existence. There are thousands of them aimed at us at this moment and we have thousands aimed at the Russians. Most of these weapons are not necessary for deterence; most are there to satisfy the urges that the army, navy and airforce have to compete with one another. There result is that in the US and Russia of today, there are currently thousands of weapons targeted at other weapons in the other country. So, we have land based missiles targeting their landbased silos, they have bombers that can attack our silos, we have sub lanched balistic missiles that can destroy their bomber bases and so on and so on. It is based on this targeting of other weapons that the military analysts have reached their conclusion that we (the US) need a minumum of 1,500 warheads to have a good deterant. An anti-missile system will cause this number to increase (by orders of magnitude), instead of decrease. There is no sense at all in building a missile defense system unless and until these numbers can be reduced to managable and sane levels. At that point, it is a different story.

rshowalter - 08:27pm Jul 2, 2001 EST (#6439 of 6440)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If the Russians trusted us to act differently from the way we acted during the "Cold War" (more our war than theirs) they there would be fine opportunities for peace. Dialog in this thread, from almarst , expresses that again and again.

Trust , and issues of reliable information flows, are crucial.

Md5969 rshowalter 6/24/01 4:51pm
almarst , this thread's "Putin stand-in character" is concerned with press freedom and clear communication in Russia. But he is also concerned with our press freedom, when it matters, and the truth of our communication, when it matters. (2 links)

MD5968 rshowalter 6/24/01 4:50pm Currently, many of our political usages, and patterns of argument, are tightly coupled to the traditions of the journalistic "culture of lying" where nothing that really matters can be checked if anybody in power objects to the checking. (with 8 links)

rshowalter - 08:34pm Jul 2, 2001 EST (#6440 of 6440)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm concerned with the fact that designs are being proposed - and proposed seriously enough to argue for the junking of key treaties -- that don't work on paper.

The missile defense proposal supported so recently by Congressman Weldon , has been put "on the back burner" in favor of lasar schemes. Here are references to the kinetic kill programs publicised by Weldon:

MD3647 rshowalter 5/10/01 7:59am

MD3650 rshowalter 5/10/01 10:55am MD3651rshowalter 5/10/01 11:58am MD3652 rshowalter 5/10/01 12:06pm

. Leading Scientists Push Missile Defense Weldon , SAFE Foundation, Host Top Researchers http://www.house.gov/curtweldon/missiledefense.html

MD3659 rshowalter 5/10/01 3:22pm

MD5966 rshowalter 6/24/01 4:48pm MD5967 rshowalter 6/24/01 4:49pm MD5968 rshowalter 6/24/01 4:50pm

MD5994 rshowalter 6/25/01 1:05pm
My concern was expressed in a quote from a mystery story writer, Dashiell Hammet in The Thin Man , 1933, speaking of a sexy, interesting, treacherous character named "Mimi". He's asked by a police detective what to make of what she says:

" The chief thing," I advised him, "is not to let her wear you out. When you catch her in a lie, she admits it and gives you another lie to take its place, and when you catch he in that one, admits it, and gives you still another, and so on. Most people . . . get discouraged after you've caught them in the third or fourth straight lie and fall back on the truth or silence, but not Mimi. She keeps trying, and you've got to be careful or you'll find yourself believing her, not because she seems to be telling the truth, but simply because you're tired of disbelieving her. "

Are the administrations missile defense arguments like that? They seem so sloppy that, to me, they seem too much like that.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense