New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(7020 previous messages)
- 01:14pm Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7021
Congressman John Tierney is taking a responsible, couragious
stand with respect to missile defense - and has put much useful
information on his Congressional Home page http://www.house.gov/tierney/
Here's an editorial Tierney recently wrote:
Pentagon report reveals flaws in missile defense by John
F. Tierney, 7/10/2001 The Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/191/oped/Pentagon_report_reveals_flaws_in_missile_defense+.shtml
" NOT TOO LONG ago, the Pentagon's purchase of
$400 hammers and $640 toilets raised eyebrows in Congress and
among the public. Yet few people claimed those deluxe hammers
couldn't cleanly hit their targets - most likely overpriced nails.
And the toilets were said to flush with exquisite efficiency.
" Not so the Pentagon's latest folly - an
obscenely expensive but flawed missile defense system the Bush
administration appears determined to deploy as early as 2004, even
though the individual who was charged with evaluating its
readiness has declared that it will not be ready, even in a
limited form, until 2011.
Tierney is speaking conservatively -- and so was Coyle, who wrote
The Coyle Report: (Coyle was Director: Operational Test and
Evaluation, Department of Defense)
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT READINESS REVIEW 10
August 2000 . . . . 69 very interesting, technically detailed pages.
The idea that our missile defense program is capable of defending
anything , now or for years to come, is simply unsupportable.
This is a boondoggle, and a very serious one.
- 05:19pm Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7022
Cognition: Bwsh isn't even running on the spot! May be
he's relying on abracadabra.!.
- 05:39pm Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7023
I feel that President Putin and his people are to be commended
for the careful, measured stance they are taking on the
administration's NMD project "accellerations."
'Contradictory' U.S. Words on ABM Issue Puzzle Russia by
PATRICK E. TYLER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/international/14RUSS.html
" MOSCOW, July 13 — Russia stated officially
today that it is confused.
" Confused, strategically speaking, on whether
the Bush administration is planning to withdraw from, negotiate
changes to, or simply "bump up against" the Antiballistic Missile
" Responding to a series of high-level
statements made in Washington on Thursday that described an
accelerated testing program for American missile defenses, Defense
Minister Sergei B. Ivanov rhetorically threw up his hands today.
He said Moscow was unable to "say anything definite" about where
things stood in the American-Russian dialogue on missile
" We are still oriented towards patient
consultations and will conduct them," Mr. Ivanov told reporters .
There's a good deal of time for such consultations - however
unfortutate the administration's actions may be, viewed from a
lawyer's perspective -- they are not taking actions that
objectively threaten anyone -- surely not Russia.
One has to be a poet indeed to find ways to stretch words to the
point where anything involved can be said to "work" in any military
sense at all. To say that the system "doesen't even work on paper"
-- much less by test -- is massive understatement -- and will remain
so if the stunt interception scheduled for this evening goes off as
If the administration destabilizes the situation, maybe in
negotiations, good things can happen.
As of now -- it is a boondoggle. If Russian engineers look at the
target signature algorithm descriptions in the Coyle report -- they
should be confident that they will have ample time to
negotiate -- an indefinitely large time -- before anything of any
military consequence at all works in the American system.
Unless I err, the difficulty of battle management increases with
number of objects, and with object sophistication - at more than an
NP rate - -something like a factorial rate. Which is to say that the
objectives of the program (which is suppose to defend the United
States in a credible way) are hopeless.
What the administration is doing is nonsense -- so far as threat,
or national defense, goes. Major portions of the military-industrial
complex are being given money to spend -- on a basis that makes the
worst of the make-work WPA projects of the 1930's look elegant.
There's time to move toward more stable military balances -- and
time for the American people to learn that they are needed.
A major problem is conceptual -- Americans have to come to
understand that the mess is as great, and the product as useless, as
it actually is.
- 05:42pm Jul 14, 2001 EST (#7024
The military industrial complex should find better, less shameful
ways to spend the national treasure. There are important things that
these people could actually do.
On NMD, they're in over their heads -- way over their heads.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science