New York Times on the Web Forums
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(16 previous messages)
- 06:15pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#17
- 06:18pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#18
I wish she had . . . but it was something special for the NYT to
host it - - and a lot was accomplished.
- 06:32pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#19
I think the timing of Nixon article was pretty interesting. It
almost seemed like a pyscho-op that conveys to Nk and its neighbors
that the nuclear pre-emptive strike by US against NK targets are not
out of the bounds of reality. If such messages are being
intentionally broadcasted to NK through various channels (i.e. Bush
speech, interviews, NYT articles, other arm-chair commentators on US
Gov. payroll), I wonder how long it would take for NK to send the
messeage of their own. Maybe unannounced nuclear test accompanied by
ICBM testing? Even as early as late this year?
- 06:40pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#20
If the Bush administration has any military competence, and any
political sanity -- it will do whatever pre-emption if must do on a
I can imagine what the world's reaction to a nuclear strike from
the US would be -- but I hate to.
It is stupid to get into a fight, on something that can be
resolved much more cheaply in other ways.
The Cold War should be over. With some work, and decency,
it can be.
People like you seem to advocate fights without end -- which may
be in the "interest" of the US military-industrial complex, but
which are NOT in the interest of American citizens as a whole, or
other people in the world.
- 06:45pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#21
The mid-course interception BMD system which has taken most of
BMD program money. is terribly vulnerable to simple countermeasures,
a point more than three dozen scientists made in a trip to Capitol
Hill in June 2000 - - a point made clearer, in detail, in the system
evaluation of the Coyle Report http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmdcoylerep.pdf
We've done much discussing of possible countermeasures, in detail
- they are very easy -- and may cost as little as a millionth of the
cost of the system they defeat.
Laser weapons are not functional at reasonable BMD ranges, and
are vulnerable to easy reflective countermeasures as well.
Take away the laser weapons, and the other offensive ideas for
space weapons don't amount to much.
. The Next Battlefield May Be in Outer
Space By JACK HITT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html
Last year, Russia hosted a meeting on the militarization of space
- something like 104 countries attended. The United States did not.
Laser weapons were centrally involved in the issues of concern.
A boost-phase interception scheme is the "Airborne Laser" or ABL
A waste of an expensive airplane, and good engineering, on a
system that can't work.
- 06:52pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#22
I am just trying to observe accurately what NK will do to
survive. I just doubt that they have been operating on the hope of
enlightened US public opinion as you so valiantly have tried to firm
- 06:57pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#23
3/1/02 6:07pm MD11896 rshow55 2/27/02 5:40pm summarized some
facts and relations, as I understand them, about the technical
problems with missile defense. I say that current programs aren't
workable, and are not worth pursuing.
MD11912 manjumicha2001 2/28/02 11:09am did not
concede the points, but did not dispute them, and raised very
practical questions. Suppose MD won't work. But suppose also that
the risks from N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran are as bad as anyone has
ever suggested - - what could be done? manjumicha2001 2/28/02
2:52pm asks for an answer in two sentences.
Two long sentences:
. If the United States could, and would,
explain its national interest -- distinct from the interests of
its military-industrial complex, and explain how its interests fit
in the interconnected world we live in -- and do it honestly, and
in ways that other nations could check, it could satisfy every
reasonable security need it has, without unreasonable or
unacceptably unpopular uses of force.
. The rest of the world, collectively, and in
detail, would try hard to accomodate US needs, if it understood
them, and could reasonably believe and respect them.
For the separate, and distinctly different cases of Iran, Iraq,
and North Korea, there would be different sentences - - but the two
long sentences above seem to me to be most important.
Of course, other nations could and should be clearer, too. But
Americans, with military expenditures now larger than those of the
next largest 12 militaries combined , has a special
New York Times on the Web Forums