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?

applez101 - 08:35pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9863 of 9872)

Kangdawei and Mazza - it is worth noting that in the early hours of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the formation of the independent Russian government and the CIS, it was upon *the insistence* of *the Americans* that all arms-control treaties of the Soviet era extend to the new government.

So your argument is moribund.

As for NMD, and the possibility of a 'rogue' nation launching an attack on the US. The question is: to what purpose? As the solitary nation to ever drop the bomb in anger, the US will feel entirely justified to use its own WMD should it ever be attacked in such a manner: MAD is truly marvelous insurance...made so by the ABM and START treaties. A *nation* has too much riding on its existence to risk that sort of war (even Iraq). A proto-national group doesn't (as has been shown 11 September), but generally don't have the resources to develop and use WMD (which remains prohibitively high).

applez101 - 08:40pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9864 of 9872)

No, IMHO, a greater risk lies in WMD being used in an unconventional manner:

-like attacking space assets (a risk that I would argue only increases with the abrogation of ABM)

or

-destabilising your opponent's economy through biological agents (Foot & Mouth disease for the agricultural sector; a particularly virulent and potent influenza or 'cold' for the services and industrial sectors).

The goal is political, and to achieve it with a minimum of deaths, easily-identified or otherwise.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the sort of opponents the US faces are not that sophisticated, technically, politically, or economically.

In the case of the former threat, one that Rumsfeld was banging on about, the principle of extraterritoriality can apply, and extend to protection of national assets by war. Given America's military edge, that is quite a potent deterrent.

The other deterrent is the increased commercialisation of space, and that is a pot that more and more are benefiting and will benefit from, reducing the desire to harm useful space assets.

rshowalter - 08:44pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9865 of 9872)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think applez's right. Attitudes, central to missile defense arguments, have been shifted by events, it seems to me. Anyway, for a sense of why lasar weapons issues matter about missile defense, and other things, I think this is an interesting article.

The Next Battlefield May Be in Outer Space By JACK HITT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html

It also seems to me that, with the community building now underway - - a very effective defense against the problems that have motivated missile defense may be coming into being.

Problems broader than the "space control" objectives Hitt reports could touch.

In a while, I'd like to touch again on the issues, very specifically related to missile defense, with examples connected to lasar weapons. Very specifically related to gisterme's postings of the 25th about "checking." I'll hold off on that, for a while, waiting to give gisterme a chance to respond to my postings of the 25th.

kangdawei - 10:32pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9866 of 9872)

Ok, I take back the argument that "relevant treaties no longer bind". It doesn't matter to me that much anyway. If it's in our national interest to abrogate a treaty then, with all deliberate due process, we must abrogate it.

I do believe it is in our national interest to build a national defense. There are a whole host of reasons for having such a defense, first and foremost of which is, it will work against its intended target, ie incoming missles. If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: why are the Chinese and Russians so afraid of our building such a defense? Is it out of care and concern for our economy? They want to prevent us from wasting money on a "boondoggle"? They have our best interests at heart.

To ask the question is to answer it.

They fear our missle defense system because they trust our ability to make it work.

As do I.

kangdawei - 10:51pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9867 of 9872)

"Once you start spinning this baby out," says Dan Smith, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information, "it becomes more complex, more expensive and more impossible to protect ourselves. After the next country introduces space weaponry, then what do we do? Live with a new, unpredictable threat orbiting right above us? Or commit an act of war by pre-emptively removing their weapons from space? The basis of security is that it never works for just one. You have to have security for everyone or it fails."

From the above-linked article.

I would answer the question YES. We commit an act of war by pre-emptively removing enemy weapons from space.

And we get to define the word "enemy".

And in fact, there is no such thing as "security for all". You can't have security for BOTH the American public and those portions of the earth's population that wants to obliterate the American public.

(I never would have typed such words before. But things have changed. There's only one choice now: defence or death. There is no middle ground. That was made abundantly clear on September 11.)

kangdawei - 10:56pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9868 of 9872)

Clinton had line-item-vetoed funds for a space plane, antisatellite weapons and a missile-defense technology.

---Also from the same above-linked article.

Clinton. What a guy.

He was Mayor of the Palace. Toastmaster In Chief.

He did nothing.

grenfell6 - 11:17pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9869 of 9872)

Isn't the entire question moot at this point(post W.T.C.).Don't we need to lower the ceiling a bit and concern ourselves more with conventional aircraft attacks?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense