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 - 08:20am Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8235 of 8240)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

An excellent letter, Defense in Space http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/29/opinion/L29MISS.html

"The Bush administration's rush to withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty (news article, Aug. 24) is alarming. One reason the administration prefers to abrogate the treaty rather than modify it is that the underlying agenda is not simply missile defense but a broader vision of the militarization of space.

"Before we upset 30 years of arms control, we need a comprehensive review of the missile defense plan's implications. This must include its true costs (and opportunity costs in terms of billions of dollars directed away from other programs), the security, geopolitical and health risks of such militarization, and the imminent possibility of igniting another arms race, in space and on the ground, by abrogating the ABM treaty."

ANDREW S. KANTER ...Chicago, Aug. 24, 2001

Assessing costs means assesssing technical problems. In a democracy, and in a world where so many human interactions are involved, that assessment needs to be done clearly, and explained clearly.

MD8211rshowalter 8/28/01 5:35pm ... MD8212 rshowalter 8/28/01 6:07pm
MD8213 rshowalter 8/28/01 6:15pm ... MD8214 rshowalter 8/28/01 6:23pm
MD815 rshowalter 8/28/01 6:42pm ...

Bush is taking positions that are supposed to be based on good reasons , with resources scarce. Bush Firm on Spending Plan Despite Ebbing Money Pool By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/30/politics/30BUSH.html

Things need to be justified in public that I don't believe can be.

rshowalter - 08:29am Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8236 of 8240)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Crude Weapons Cited As Achilles Heel in Missile Plan by William J. Broad http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/27/international/27MISS.html ends with this quote from Lt. Col. Richard Lehrner.

" It's irresponsible to launch off on more difficult flight tests before we've solved the fundamentals."

But isn't it also irresponsible to initiate, or continue, programs where there are very good reasons to believe that the programs cannot meet objectives for fundamental and clear technical reasons?

MD8216 rshowalter 8/28/01 6:53pm

To show that this is irresponsible, the good technical reasons have to be explained to the real people involved, with circumstances as they are.

rshowalter - 08:34am Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8237 of 8240)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

To use a phrase from Carl Sagan, the missile defense programs now on the table are "billions and billions" of times harder than the Japanese effort to build a new rocket. And look how much trouble the Japanese , who are competent folk, are having! http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Japan-Rocket.html
armel7 8/29/01 11:24am

wrcooper - 09:06am Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8238 of 8240)

Missile defence system threatens Europe.

rshowalter - 09:44am Aug 30, 2001 EST (#8239 of 8240)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Yes, if a boost phase destruction occurs, the warhead may remain intact, and fall and explode short -- probably killing fewer people than targeted - - but different people. Effective prohibition of these weapons would be better.

Other links from the New Scientist story above.

Missile defence test hit by software bug by Jeff Hecht http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991059

Missile defence aims for treaty, not missiles byDebora MacKenzie http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991021

MIT Security Studies Program Research Faculty http://web.mit.edu/ssp/faculty.html

Intercontinental Ballistic and Cruise Missiles http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense