[F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (7839 previous messages)

bakho - 10:46am Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7840 of 7905)

Note that reason number 1 on why missile defense will not work is valid, even if all the technical considerations can be overcome. Current missile defense testing has a poor record against targets with extremely limited countermeasures. In fact, the last "successful" test was a sham because the incoming missile had a beacon that was used to orient the kill missile. If it is very difficult to hit a missile when you know when it is launched and where it is heading before hand, then it becomes much more difficult when you do not know the launch time, trajectory or target. Enemies can further confuse the system by launching multiple "dummy" missiles making it harder to find the warhead carrier and then the warhead carrier can contain numerous decoys that confuse the kill vehicle and disguise the warhead from detection. We are going to spend untold billions for this when the money is better spent on deterence and interdiction measures that keep our enemies from obtaining these weapons in the first place? Our military will not support missiled defense if the price is the cutback of current force strength and combat readiness.

A previous poster wondered why the Russians would want to destroy massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. The answer is the same reason the US is destroying much of its chemical arsenal. If you are not planning on using these devices in combat, then they present a threat and a hazard to your own country. The potential for accidental release is very real. It has happened in Russia in the past and wiped out whole cities. The US has only been lucky. Since the Russians have no use for these weapons, they have to carry the costs of properly guarding and maintaining them, which because Russia is broke, they do not have the resources to do. Furthermore, these weapons are subject to theft either by underpaid army personnel within Russia or by foreign operatives. Russia has many enemies within not the least is the war in Chechnya. At some point these weapons become more of a liability than an asset. That is the case today. They are not only a liability to Russia but to US interests because of the possibility of falling into the wrong hands

ledzeppelin - 12:23pm Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7841 of 7905)

So the likes of Osama bin Laden, whom has already declared he wants a nuclear capability? Therefore, does he buy an inter ballistic missile at $200 millions a missile that may not even hit his actual target, etc? Alternatively, does he buy for $25 millions a brief case nuclear bomb.... A bomb that will destroy all within a 3-mile radius moreover gives a 100% accurate kill target. This is a bomb you can walk across a border with. Moreover sit at home in the Mountains and detonate the suitcase bomb via your MOBILE PHONE and watch the full horror on CNN. So I fear the suitcase bomb, will be the bomb of choice for any rogue state or terrorist group furthermore both the cost and accuracy factors will be taken into account? $25 millions is easier to find than $200 millions; in addition, they need say another $50 millions to establish a launch facility and site? So it’s no contest, No Mr Bush the bad guys will walk their nuclear bomb in, not fly it! Therefore what value Star Wars then?

den345 - 04:07pm Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7842 of 7905)

suitcase nukes are an urban legend. people are under the mistaken impression that they are easy to produce. they are not. you cannot simply buy the parts from radio shack. plutonium is not the only component of a nuclear weapon that is difficult to get.

the second problem is, well, agenda. in the very unlikely event that someone manages to cobble together a portable nuclear device, and then musters the courage to use it, that person will have no friends left. their agenda will disappear. one does not vaporize a city and get off scott free. in the case of bin laden, i'd guess that afghanistan would be immediately invaded and occupied, and he would be captured or killed in short order. when world opinion no longer matters, steamrolling over third world countries is easy.

ledzeppelin - 06:57pm Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7843 of 7905)

Very regrettable you are irrefutable incorrect as ‘a nuke in a suitcase’ is fact, not a myth; however much you may pray they are! Moreover they are considerable easier to produce than most global citizens are under the mistaken illusion that they are? One would only have to travel to Eastern Europe to find the weapons grade plutonium for sale as well as the machine tools and or the parts they would require.

Do you really believe, that the terrorist that feels both the USA and the EU countries are the living Satan’s furthermore that these terrorists or even ‘so called’ rogue states whom feel the west has irreversible polluted their Holy places [i.e. Mecca in Saudi Arabia] need the courage to use such weapons of mass destruction on ‘things’, as we are no longer human in their eyes and or perception.

You are irrefutable incorrect in your basic assumption that the user of such a weapon would have no friends left? Have you never hear the expression one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter!

Why would the west invade Afghanistan? The likes of Osama bin Laden could as easily be in Zolfo Springs as Kabul? Again it is a myth that bin Laden is hiding in the hills….. When you think that a $5 millions reward has not brought bin laden any closer to the FBI’s clutches than an autumn breeze, this must tell you something about his friends moreover how many he has, from pilots, bankers, chauffeurs, etc, etc, not to mention his complete freedom to roam the middle and far east with impunity.

As to invading any sovereign nation whether world opinion matters or not again is a dangerous game to play because you would legitimise the original act? This would then unite every despot and terrorist against you! Oh well, if life were but just such a simple game, as you think it to be?.

lunarchick - 01:26am Aug 11, 2001 EST (#7844 of 7905)

Security - no such thing, because systems can always be flouted, be it depolarising book spines, cat burglary or MD.

Micro Switches are a vital part of exploding an atomic weapon .. LA bail jumping fugitive Richard Smith 71, arms trafficker has been charged with selling 850 kryton nuclear triggers to the Isrealis.

Will the Spanish High Court return him to the USA?

Would his return throw a spotlight on the hidden trade, the sympathetic network of suppliers?

Why did spain arrest the guy now - when it's 16 years since he jumped bail? Perhaps the EU is looking at Isreal and the nuclear issue!
(from page7 26_july2001).

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (61 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company