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?

lunarchick - 09:38am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6967 of 6982)
lunarchick@www.com

2008 the bidding is on for the Olympics. Toronto note that out of the past six Olympics, the outright favourite didn't get the games. The Human Rights Issue is beginning to figure - turning the Chinese selection into a political one.

Concerns re how the Chinese State treats it's own people. Commentator said: Months ago ... A man had his business demolished. No compensation. He spoke to international reporters ... he was taken away ... can not be traced.

China ought not to get the Games until the corrupt Government that has no respect for the individual citizen is outted! dR

amacd - 09:44am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6968 of 6982)
Corporate rule is not democratic

Bush definitely needs more testing in his "boost phase", although I have every confidence that his "terminal phase" will function perfectly ------ and soon.

rshowalter - 09:50am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6969 of 6982)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Interesting first line in today's Lead Editorial:

A Missile Defense Test for Congress http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/opinion/12THU3.html

"The Pentagon has not yet developed any technology that can reliably shoot down enemy missiles. Yet the Bush administration seems determined to sidestep Congressional and European misgivings and the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and start building a rudimentary missile shield during its first term. Its latest gambit is a plan for a new test site in Alaska, with a few interceptor rockets stored nearby for possible emergency use. Some details remain unclear, but the arrangement could dangerously blur the distinction between testing and the fielding of an operational system.

"Congress should insist that testing programs remain within the limits of the ABM treaty. It should not approve the deployment of an operational system until it is satisfied that the technology has been reliably proven and that every effort has been made to preserve the benefits of existing arms agreements. Senior Pentagon officials will testify today on missile defense issues before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senators should use this hearing to press for more information on the Alaska plan and should demand assurances that it will not be used to circumvent the ABM treaty.

"That treaty allows almost unlimited testing of ground-based defenses, but confines such testing to two designated sites, currently Kwajalein Island in the Pacific and White Sands, N.M. A new test from Kwajalein is scheduled for Saturday.

"Shifting future tests to Alaska would require Russia's agreement. Moscow understands as well as everyone else that Alaska is where the United States would want to put a functioning missile defense base aimed at thwarting attack from North Korea. By agreeing to a change in test sites, Russia would, in effect, be taking the first important step toward modifying the ABM treaty to accommodate limited national missile defenses. Such agreement would be welcome. But it may not come in time for construction to start this summer on the Alaska test site, as the administration envisions.

"Last month Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to promise that nothing planned for the next budget year would breach the ABM treaty. Congress must insist on such a pledge before it approves any money for the Alaska test site.

lunarchick - 09:56am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6970 of 6982)
lunarchick@www.com

Showalter .. i see a fundamental problem with the American Political System as being the fact that the/this President has not 'gone through' the Parliament.

Isn't it necessary for a real Leader to have worked their way through the HOUSE to understand how the House works, what the function of the Parliament is .... the function must surely be to serve the needs of the individual citizen.

This raises the point, how does the individual USA citizen communicate down to this President, when his priorities are not parallel with their own.

lunarchick - 09:59am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6971 of 6982)
lunarchick@www.com

In relation to Russia and North Korea .. it was established (above) that both would be linked by a railway - to be built. On a geophysical basis, therefore, the Russians won't cow-tow to Bwsh.

rshowalter - 10:00am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6972 of 6982)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That first line is understated:

" The Pentagon has not yet developed any technology that can reliably shoot down enemy missiles."

That line is true, but could be expanded to read:

" The Pentagon has not yet developed any technology, even on paper, at the level of plans that could be presented for examination by independent experts, that can or could possibly, much less reliably, shoot down enemy missiles.

"The proposal floated with the fewest technical problems, the Garwin proposal, could not be used anywhere near the Alaskan site -- but would have to be deployed within a few hundred miles, or less, of the fired missile being defended against.

" The "smart rock" proposal which has been most tested has had little success --even on tests that are far easier than tactical conditions would be.

" The lasar weapon proposals -- all of them, whether ground or space based - are deeply flawed at a number of technical levels involving resolution and control, and are almost trivial to defend against with reflective coatings. http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm

lunarchick - 10:01am Jul 12, 2001 EST (#6973 of 6982)
lunarchick@www.com

2008 - attatching 'Human Rights' strings to Beijing is now being mooted.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense