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?

rshowalter - 05:36pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8065 of 8070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Since July 4th, The New York Times -- Science -- Missile Defense forum has had 1500 postings - many extensive. These include useful comments from almarst , our "Putin stand in" , and gisterme , our "Bush administration high official stand-in."

MD7098 rshowalter 7/16/01 7:52pm .. contains a critique and a challenge. I point out the power that one person, willing to be at risk, can sometimes have, by means of a famous picture of defiance more eloquent than any words I could muster. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-1.jpg

MD7100 rshowalter 7/16/01 8:41pm sets out directories, and the key story set out in this thread, where I've said many of the most important things I'd like people to know.

including the key story, #13.. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?7@@.ee7a163/13 ... to #23.. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?7@@.ee7a163/24 and note #26 ...

Summaries and links to the Science - Missile Defense thread are set out from #153 int the Guardian Talk thread Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror , starting at #151 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/160

MD7144-48 rshowalter 7/17/01 7:13pm contains working summaries, and a working objective of the Science - MD thread:

To clean up the messes left by the Cold War, and make better security possible, communication has to happen between the staffs of nation states. The Missile Defense thread is built as an example of what would be required to meet the needs of this staffed communication.

Does the format work? Is the thread worth the effort? In some ways, I think the answer is yes. Truths, that seem perfectly clear, are not being sufficiently influential -- they remain "somehow, too weak." ... MD6670 rshowalter 7/6/01 11:44am

Bertotdt Brecht's essay, WRITING THE TRUTH, FIVE DIFFICULTIES is in my version of his play, GALILEO , set into English by Charles Laughton, and includes this:

" It takes courage to say that the good were defeated not because they were good, but because they were weak."

When the truth is too weak, we have to ask: why? Was it indeed the truth? Or were there systematic barriers to the propagation of the truth -- chain breakers?

Fear is a problem, and a deeply embedded one, all through the system, for journalists, for members of the government, and for people who depend on the government (that is, all of us.) And reluctance to face new ideas is, as well.

I think some may enjoy "Chain Breakers" . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/618 in this regard. This summary contains links that I feel are particularly interesting: MD6613-6614 rshowalter 7/4/01 11:46pm

wrcooper - 05:39pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8066 of 8070)

See the 2001 Pentagon Annual Report, Chapter 6, on missile defense.

What came through to me was that the biggest concern of the DOD is not the threat to the US from ICBMs, particularly from Korea, but the threat to the ability of the US to project power elsewhere in the world. I got the impression that most of the defensive weapons would be used to guard allies.

This makes sense to me. All of us have criticized the NMD program as a waste, since an adversary wishing to attack US soil would be more likely to use a poor man's delivery system, such as a smuggled backpack with a nuclear weapon in it, than a missile. But where a missile-toting state could gain real advantage would be in places like the middle east, where the threat of a short range missile launch could seriously affect the stability of the region. If Iran or Iraq had a missile capable of carrying a nuke to London or Paris, that would undoubtedly influence how our European allies behaved toward Israel, etc. So if a nuclear defensive capability existed, that might assuage some of the nervousness that a nuclear missile capability in the hands of terrorist states would provoke.

None of this addresses the technical problems we've discussed. The tec hnical hurdles to poducing a viable shield remain daunting. How to overcome decoys is a question nobody has answered.

But I think it possible, even likely, that a missile defense capability is aimed more at preventing destabilization in troubled areas than it is at protecting US cities and civilian populations. I mean, the people in the Pentagon aren't stupid. Then again, it could be just about filling the feeding troughs for the military industrial complex. However, they could find other programs besides NMD to accomplish that goal, so they must think that NMD is needed somehow.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense