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?

di0genes - 05:20pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8191 of 8205)

This is what the rouges are betting on.

What, now makeup is our enemy?

That the US will not retaliate against a North Korea for instance because of all the South Koreans,

If we actually cared about the South Koreans, we would normalize relations with North Korea, as most South Koreans want.

Chinese, Taiwanese and Japanese that would be vaporized by US hydrogen warheads hitting North Korea.

North Korea is impoverished; we could easily have our way with them IF WE WANTED. But North Korea serves a purpose, a purpose we see all too well in these discussions.

armel7 - 05:40pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8192 of 8205)
Science/Health Forums Host

truegrit9 -- Please address Missile Defense issues, not the administration's energy policy.

di0genes -- Your last posts ewre deleted due to insults. Please make counter arguments not with insults but with reason.

patmcclung -- Sorry, but discussing the logistics of (non-MDS-related) terrorist acts is not appropriate and not the subject of this forum.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

di0genes - 05:48pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8193 of 8205)

di0genes -- Your last posts ewre deleted due to insults. Please make counter arguments not with insults but with reason.

There's no way to "counter argue" with Showalter, who dominates boards with sheer volume. Most sensible forums don't allow that.

syndicatilist - 06:53pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8194 of 8205)

The "wobbly warhead" issue addressed in the NYT article: Achilles heel in Missile Plan: Crude Weapons is relevant to the argument. This illustrates the degree to which this debate has become solely ideological. Former financial hawks now blindly throw money at a system that is far from agreed on. Many defense experts doubt its effectiveness and strategic importance in the modern, non-Cold War era.

"Doves" bring MAD out of the closet as a reason to abort this expensive program.

I think we should pay attention to two things: 1. the CIA 2. Cost benefit analysis

The CIA says our most realistic threats are not from missiles. Hacking has been a huge problem, with serious defense implications. Terrorism attacks like the USS Cole, World Trade Bombing and embassy bombings are much more common today. We are no longer in the Cold War. We need to spend our money to address new problems, not continue the REagan Stars Wars legacy

di0genes - 07:19pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8195 of 8205)

aegis1938 8/27/01 11:26am

Nice piece from someone with a 3 digit IQ and a bit of intellectual integrity; thanks.

Look up "Starfish prime", "Kingfish", "Bluegill Triple Prime", or "Fishbowl".

I found some interesting reading at

http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/domdoc.htm

and

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:hPZwsTNwwG8:www.au.af.mil/au/database/projects/ay1999/cadre/chun.pdf+Bluegill+Triple+Prime+ground+sensors+blind&hl=en

The latter is particularly interesting if you read it critically and between-the-lines (a capability not belied by the comments of the proponents of MDS to be found in this forum). Consider, for instance:

"Some analysts believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea poses the biggest threat to the United States because of its continuing efforts to expand its ballistic missile capabilities and acquire weapons of mass destruction. 101"

Trained readers will immediately recognize the level of credibility that goes with such locutions as "Some analysts believe", and the purposes for which they are used. The citation is worth noting:

101. Timothy M. Beard and Ivan Eland, "Ballistic Missile Proliferation," Foreign Policy Briefing no. 51, 11 February 1999, 8.

I'm sure we can count on Messrs Beard and Eland for reliable, unbiased, expert opinion on this topic. According to http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-051es.html:

Timothy M. Beard was a research assistant at the Cato Institute in 1998. Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

"Some" analysts, indeed. Of course, SOME doctors are obese alcoholic smokers, which is why we don't generally rely on what "some" people "believe", even when they are given undue credence by having "analyst" attached to their names.

Does anyone really believe that North Korea or some other alleged rogue nation is going to launch a ICBM against us?

Well, of course, many people do; the propaganda machine is doing its job.

windsorlad - 08:04pm Aug 27, 2001 EST (#8196 of 8205)

As a humble U.K. citizen, I have often wondered why the American 'Anti-Missile Programme' was cancelled under the Clinton administration. Surely, if it were only be used as a defensive shield and not as a means of retaliation, who could possibly complain? Maybe if America and Russia were to develop a joint programme (I am sure there are quite a few 'rogue' countries who would like to take a 'pot shot' at some of Russia's main cities),the problem of tumbling missiles could be quickly solved.

I seem to remember in the Gulf War, Patriot missiles fired to deflect Scud rockets fired from Iraq at Israel, often caused more damage than the original Scud ! This is a problem that will have to be overcome.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense