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 - 05:11pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9911 of 9925)

kangdawei - "you seem to imply that there are important military systems that will be starved if we "waste" the money on missle defence. please, tell me, in your view, what weapons systems would YOU like to see heavily funded? what technological advances of the combat kind are YOU interested in funding?"

-I'll take a shot at this (haha):

-Firstly, it is important to recognise that defence extends far beyond mere military force, it extends to political, economic, cultural relationships and potent diplomacy.

-To date, what form have the majority of attacks against the US (people and government) been? There have been some missile attacks yes, but very few, and only at the scale of a given region or theatre...not the ICBM sort. Most have been conventional bombings carried about by a small group of individuals (McVeigh) or highly secretive organisations (al-Qeda).

-And in all those attacks, what was the chief reason for their success? A breakdown in intelligence...either from existing limitations, or institutional problems. Really, a bog standard police force is all you need to stop a bomber, so long as they have the timing and information down. No hi-tech expensive missile interception system is useful in this regard.

-What about WMD one might ask? Well, they certainly pose a terrible risk with the potential of very heavy losses...but the difficulty with which to successful acquire, manufacture, and/or deliver these weapons (just look at how far the Tokyo gas attack fell short of their plan) puts these weapons largely in the hands of nations: which have too much to lose from a retaliatory strike. 'Gulf War Syndrome' is still too much of a mystery to attribute to a weapon (and doesn't really have the characteristics of one anyway: virulence, illness, and death rates are too low).

-Funding for a society *is* a zero-sum game. Better guns means worse schools, or trains, or lax food law enforcement. So, it becomes imperative that you develop the most cost-effective strategies available. NMD still hasn't made its case on that front, and truly cannot. Another 'pork' project like fusion power research at least promises greater long-term benefit than NMD, and is at least as technically difficult at the moment.

-What should be funded? Well, consolidating our intelligence services might be a good start, as well as improving salaries to prevent more Ames turncoats from arising (either by decreasing the likelihood of their mercenary habit taking over; or by improving the controls the organisation has to deal with these sort of individuals earlier on). This may actually present cost-savings as duplication of effort is reduced. Greater, more widely distributed civilian police forces (and get away from this horrendous paramilitarisation in the form of SWAT teams) who *are* the frontline for these types of 'asymmetrical attacks.' And desperately improve the consular services who are the real gatekeepers for all visitors to the US, those who desire at least some form of documented entry. Again, better linkage to INS may be advisable.

-Only at the end of these bureaucratic reforms should one consider the utility of the military...including beefing up Marine detachments to embassies and again, improving the *human element* of these forces. Skills training, especially for unconventional warfare with unconventional solutions may be advisable. Where technology can play a very useful role is again in intelligence: where drone gatherers are already being fielded, in all sizes.

applez101 - 05:16pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9912 of 9925)

Ultimately, countries that foster suicide bombers need to reform: this can range from improved democratisation (i.e. taking your complaints to court, to a voting public, can produce change) to improved economic conditions (when you've got a good job, decent housing, and a family, you've got a lot more to lose by blowing yourself up for a cause).

The classic struggle against poverty is again revisited.

You are probably less likely to 'smash the system' when you are dependent upon, or a part of it. This is in many cases the 'promise' of 'globalisation,' and as the numerous protests have shown, where problems exist to be solved.

applez101 - 05:22pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9913 of 9925)

Frankly, I think the US would be dead pleased if more of its enemies had missiles. They are relatively easy to spot, require a lot of technical expertise to launch (assuming you didn't develop it yourself) <giving you a greater chance of catching wind of its development>, and have some serious limitations on range and payload.

A Ryder truck, 767 jet, or freight ship escape many of these constraints...and will continue to be the weapons of choice for groups that know they don't stand a chance by any other means.

That's assuming more sophisticated means aren't used, like cyberwarfare, biological or chemical weapons.

Or that more sophisticated goals aren't pursued: like economic disruption, tactical illness, or data theft for political or economic gain that blatant violence or 'terror' cannot provide.

applez101 - 05:26pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9914 of 9925)

BTW, does anybody else just love the irony of this President? I mean, if he keeps up this spending habit, he'll be more New Deal than FDR! LOL!

What ever happened to the hallmark conservative issues like 'balanced budget' or 'individual rights'?

rshowalter - 05:39pm Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9915 of 9925)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Questions:

Why can't the United States get the military capabilities, combined perhaps with other capabilities, needed to assure the objectives of missile defense?

If we had these capabilities, what would stand in the way of our being able to use them with the consent, and approval, of the great majority of people in the world?

I think the answers can be blocked out, and a good deal of that blocking out has already been done, on a dry run basis, on this board.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense