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?

speedbird77 - 07:17am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8175 of 8205)

" Those who insist on clinging to the ABM treaty wish upon us a world in which our security depends only on the threat of nuclear annihilation of those who may threaten or blackmail us, a world where an American president could be forced to choose between backing down or killing untold numbers of people in another country as punishment for their leader's miscalculations

AND millions in other nations which had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack.

This is what the rouges are betting on.

That the US will not retaliate against a North Korea for instance because of all the South Koreans, Chinese, Taiwanese and Japanese that would be vaporized by US hydrogen warheads hitting North Korea.

Mass retaliation against a small-scale attack is unacceptable.

richr11b - 07:28am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8176 of 8205)

Crude weapons are indeed a problem, and not just wobbly warheads. Consider an even cruder weapon - a bomb in a suitcase (or shipping crate if a suitcase is too small). It has the advantages of being

1. Cheap 2. Anonymous 3. Reliable

What two-bit dictator would forego the building of another palace just for a new rocket system which may or may not work all the time. Also, the dictator may or may not declare responsibility, depending on the political climate of the moment because no one will be sure of where the bomb came from - not an option with a rocket system.

shawano - 08:35am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8177 of 8205)

One can easily assume that the experts saying that the missle defense equiptment is too crude to do the job are the same types that said the Apollo Moon trips would not work. They did and we can make the defense system work also. We just need the 'experts' to get out of the way.

wrcooper - 09:18am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8178 of 8205)

August 27, 2001

Achilles' Heel in Missile Plan: Crude Weapons

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

zevon13 - 09:23am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8179 of 8205)

Yes, what a fine idea. We should bankrupt ourselves to prove the experts wrong and show the world that we can shoot down a tumbling nuclear warhead. All the while a nuke, easily planted in the hold of a 25 ft. pleasure craft on the East river in New York, quietly and patiently waits to destroy the city in the blink of an eye. Or are we to come up with a satellite that will shoot down pleasure boats?

We have met the enemy and he am us.

wrcooper - 09:31am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8180 of 8205)

wrcooper 8/27/01 9:18am

Bush and the Pentagon sell the system to counter an alleged missile threat from rogue nations, such as Korea or Iraq. Now we learn that the weapons most likely to be used by such nations will be the most difficult for us to shoot down--that, in fact, we have not even tested a system that could shoot down "tumbling" warheads. This is just plain deception. It's tantamount to lying to the American people.

Using the Pentagon's logic, maybe we should equip the Koreans and Iraqis and the other bad guys with our own state-of-the-art spin-stabilized warheads. That way we'd have a chance of shooting them down. It would appear that so long as these rogue nations use their crude nuclear "mudballs," our super-sophisticated gadgetry is no match for them.

What a world!

revfred2000 - 09:49am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8181 of 8205)
F.J. Kennedy-Hippchen

Nice ploy! Transparent, but nice!

Begin the antimissle project and now make the public aware that there is a major "tumbling problem".

What ELSE don't we know!

How about applying our finest technology to solving the "problem" of counting ballots? Now there is one initiative for sure that is unlikely to get off the ground!

Ah, yes .... politics as usual.

yojim - 10:49am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8182 of 8205)

Does anyone remember the Marginot Line? France spent a fortune, and a large part of its military budget, to build an impregnable line to stop a German invasion. It looked pretty invulnerable, and even the Nazis thought it couldn't be beat. So they went around it, and France ended up occupied by Nazis. Ask yourself: Even if Star Wars works, won't these enemies we should be so afraid of simply go around it? Which is cheaper: building one missile that won't make through, or smuggling in three or four bombs? So Star Wars will do, what exactly, besides make the Resident of the White House's friends rich? Jim

jerry710 - 10:56am Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8183 of 8205)

"Achilles' Heel in Missile Plan: Crude Weapons By WILLIAM J. BROAD

The missile defense planned by the Bush administration may be least able to destroy warheads from countries that are thought to pose the biggest threat, federal and private experts say.

The trouble is that so-called rogue nations, like North Korea, Iran and Iraq, would fire wobbling, rudimentary warheads during an attack, and those turn out to be among the hardest to hit."

Bush's "Star Wars" fiasco will do what it is intended to do, namely, provoke an arms race. Thus, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Aschcroft, Powell and the rest of that unelected gang will be able to pay off their arms peddler buddies.

Hopefully, there will be a sufficient number of honest members of Congress with the courage to mount the necessary filibuster to head off this boondoggle.

(22 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense