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?
(7839 previous messages)
- 10:46am Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7840
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
- 12:23pm Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7841
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
- 04:07pm Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7842
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.
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.
- 06:57pm Aug 10, 2001 EST (#7843
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
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?.
- 01:26am Aug 11, 2001 EST (#7844
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
(from www.theaustralian.com.au page7 26_july2001).
New York Times on the Web Forums Science