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?

mazza9 - 11:19pm Sep 27, 2001 EST (#9870 of 9875)
Louis Mazza

The US can withdraw from the ABM Treaty by giving notice. Give it. Offer Russia the chance to join us as equal partners in the 21st Century. They deserve that recognition and Putin has already responded positively to President Bush's extended hand of friendship. Leverage the high tech dervied from the ISS and they will eagerly join us. We then build our defenses and "secure" our countries.

Ask yourself, why is North Korea allowing it's citizens to starve while it pursues a nuclear missile with intercontinental range? Why is it selling this technology to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc. etc? And what do Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan hope to achieve with this capability? Of what use is a land mobile ICBM to the Chinese?

Imagine, that the WTC had been ground zero for a Hiroshima blast. Death toll would have been at least 5 Million immediately with twice that amount from the fallout radiation. Blast damage would reach from Newark to Hartford to Sandy Hook! Our economy would be in the tank big time and the DOW would probably be 50! I remember the scare movies of the 50s. But then as a SAC staff officer I saw the "real deal". Remember the movie War Games and Matthew Broderick's desire to play "Global Thermonuclear War"? Well, I've been there, done that.

When President Clinton changed our nuclear policy from launch on warning to launch on attack he set the stage for the circumstances we now face. He was weak and our enemies responded. In New York it was a given that muggers were able to pick there victims by the "victim cues" that they broadcast. Well, we've been mugged! No one ever asked Mr. Clinton, "Mr. President. Exactly which city are you willing to sacrifice before you respond?"

I saw MAD up close and personal. It wasn't pretty then and It is not an option now. You build a defense, intensify you intelligence gathering and you stop the terrorist on that twilight battlefield where there are no video clips of smart bombs going down elevator shafts. Just a body with a new smile from ear to ear.

LouMazza

kangdawei - 12:34am Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9871 of 9875)

Meanwhile the chorus rises up,

"How could NMD have prevented the WTC attack."

Sort of like, "how can an AIDS vaccine prevent cancer?"

We need an AIDS vaccine... and we also need good cancer therapy/cures.

We need a homeland defense on the ground... and we also need one in space.

rshowalter - 06:13am Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9872 of 9875)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Has to work. In the full context, as it is.

The possibility of "no solution" has to be carefully considered.

Not dismissed.

Suppose I, with some help, lay out a clear case for "no solution."

If there is a solution, I could do no better service to the cause of identifying it.

To have a chance of getting a workable solution, you have to strip away the crap.

If you have a program that can't possibly work, and that program is soaking up resources, and you're operationally sure of that, the thing to do is shoot it right between the eyes.

(The program, not the people who had the idea, who may have found it reasonable for good reasons, and just missed something. And who could be valuable if they were engaged in doing something possible.)

We want solutions, for our security, in the real world as it is, that can work.

If every single person on a lasar weapon program was redeployed to getting our energy problems under control, we might get good solutions, pretty quick.

And if some bozos who are too rigid to do so would learn some math, they might get a sense of what they could do on some of these jobs.

rshowalter - 08:19am Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9873 of 9875)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Serious piece on deterrance:

. Talk Later by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/28/opinion/28FRIE.html

But there has to be enough of the right kind of talking (Friedman's clear about that) and what is done has to work.

And the moral prices paid have to be considered -- they aren't necessarily avoidable, or not worth paying - - but they have to be considered.

And - - this connects to missile defense - - to lie cheat and steal to defend a fiasco cannot serve the national interest.

(Could I be wrong? People are. Am I being too public? If there are people in authority who wince, they should seriously consider opening channels of communication, that are workable, in another way. MD305 rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm )

If other nations give the same thought to deterrance that Friedman advocates in the specific case of the terrorists, we wouldn't need nuclear weapons, and there would be no need for Buck Rogers approaches to missile defense , either, but we'd have good reason to stay awake. And our military orientations would have to change in other ways, as well.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense