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?
(7483 previous messages)
- 07:42am Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7484
ANOTHER FULL NEWS AND DISCUSSION DAY RE MISSILE DEFENSE:
Russia, U.S. Discuss ABM Treaty By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-US-ABM.html
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia denied it was re-examining its position on the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on Friday, following talks with U.S.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Tells Iraq It May Retaliate for Missile Attack on Spy
Plane By THOM SHANKER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/27/international/middleeast/27IRAQ.html
President Bush warned Thursday that the United States reserves the
right to respond to Iraq's attempt this week to shoot down a U-2
U.S. Offers Russia a Blueprint for Talks on Nuclear
Weapons By MICHAEL WINES http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/27/international/27RUSS.html
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, offered Russian
President Vladimir V. Putin an American blueprint Thursday for
building a nuclear- weapons framework
Rice: U.S. Won't Wait for Russia By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MOSCOW (AP) -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said
Thursday that the United States will not wait for Russian agreement
to deploy a planned national missile defense system
Russia Heard No New Arguments to Scrap ABM By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-ru.html
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Friday it had heard no new
arguments from the United States that would persuade it to agree to
scrap or radically change the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
Digital Defense By THOMAS FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/27/opinion/27FRIE.html
The more the Internet brings us together, the more vulnerable we are
to a breakdown. The real threat to our country comes from
cyberterrorists, not missiles
M.I.T. Physicist Says Pentagon Is Trying to Silence Him By
JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/27/politics/27MISS.html
A leading critic of the military's missile defense testing program
has accused the Pentagon of trying to silence him
. . . .
At the level of actual military function - missile defense seems
to have no substance at all - but the forces at play here a big. If
missile defense were understood for what it is (a bluff, started as
a bluff by Ronald Reagan, that has grown like a cancer, sustained by
deception) -- what would happen to the political credibility of the
military-industrial complex, on which so much money depends?
That seems to me to be the big, over-arching story. If there was
substance to missile defense - people would be making clear
technical arguments for it by now -- arguments that could stand the
light of day. It isn't happening.
Suggested search terms, this thead: internet, shuck, culture of
- 08:21am Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7485
Or should that read:
Complex, that depends so much on 'money' I was busy
watching the Oz-Navy!
- 08:29am Jul 27, 2001 EST (#7486
Another big story is how little of military importance the
"mic" has been able to come up with, since the Vietnam War, compared
to the rates of progress that we've become historically used to.
(Compare airplanes in WWI and WWII separated in time by 25 years - -
and contrast the much slower progress in military airplane
performance in the last 30 years.)
In aviation, progress has been very slow, in important military
terms, in the last thirty years. The progress that has occured has
happened at a price that would have been unimaginable and horrifying
forty years ago.
(Clarence "Kelly" Johnson's Skunk Works developed the U-2 in 8
months, and delivered 20 airplanes,, with spare parts, for under 20
million 1955 dollars. They developed main line jet fighers with
impressive performance, even today - also for very little money.
These jobs were done, with little manpower, by today's standards,
not only because Johnson and his team knew their stuff -- but
because they were facing real and substantial
Comparing the costs of development in the 50's and 60''s to the
price of single fighters today (fighers not so much better than
older fighters) gives a sense of how marginal the room for
improvement engineers are finding actually is.
In military aviation, the biggest innovation of the last thirty
years - stealth - is obsolete.
In "smart weapons" development, there is far less to show than
people expected - because people came up against a mathematical
There are no space weapons that make any military sense at all -
- for fundamental reasons very unlikely to change, including a
number of mathematical brick walls. Rumsfeld's idea of a "high
frontier" of military function makes no more technical sense, today,
than attempting the technical performance in Kubrick's 2001 A
Space Odyssey would make. We've done less than we hoped.
After about 140 billion dollars spent on missile defense -- we
have few things that work at all, at the system level, even at the
level of stunts. For basic reasons, some mathematical reasons that
The reasons to fund military research, and new military
procurement, are getting less, because the threats we face are much
reduced, but also because the new stuff, on balance, may be but
little better than the old -- or, in militarily useful terms, no
better at all.
And the corruption of the military industrial complex has become
massive -- they've been overselling their accomplishments, to get
money that couldn't be rationally justified, for a long time.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science