New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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 Thursday.
(14481 previous messages)
lchic
- 10:15pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (#
14482 of 14512) ~~~~ It got understood and exposed
~~~~
Moore on America ___ story time ' ... The fear drug works
like this:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1057357,00.html
you are repeatedly told that bad, scary people are going to
kill you, so place all your trust in us, your corporate
leaders, and we will protect you. But since we know what's
best, don't question us if we want you to foot the bill for
our tax cut, or if we decide to slash your health benefits or
jack up the cost of buying a home. And if you don't shut up
and toe the line and work your ass off, we will sack you - and
then just try to find a new job in this economy, punk!
The other drug is nicer. It is first prescribed to us as
children in the form of a fairy tale - but a fairy tale that
can actually come true! It is the Horatio Alger myth. Alger
was one of the most popular American writers of the late
1800s. His stories featured characters from impoverished
backgrounds who, through pluck and determination and hard
work, were able to make huge successes of themselves in this
land of boundless opportunity. The message was that anyone can
make it in America, and make it big.
We are addicted to this happy rags-to-riches myth in this
country. People in other industrialised democracies are
content to make a good enough living to pay their bills and
raise their families. Few have a cutthroat desire to strike it
rich. They live in reality, where there are only going to be a
few rich people, and you are not going to be one of them. '
bluestar23
- 10:19pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (#
14483 of 14512)
Looneychic is getting a little irritated......
fredmoore
- 10:24pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (#
14484 of 14512)
Rshow,
Bluestar23 has asked me to ask you to post something ..
well .. something more directly on-Topic. The following
synopsis of the Strategic Defence Layers indicates that tier 3
is THAAD or theatre high altitude area defence. Can you say a
few words on THAAD and space based missile defence systems in
general, for us.
My own view is that the majority of funding for space
exploration should be initially for space based solar power
under the aegis of KAEP. I believe under that scenario that
nations would be too busy cooperating to achieve cheap
electric power than to develop missile attack systems. And for
what? To get their share of the world's energy supplies? As
soon as missile systems (defensive or otherwise) are
established in outer space you can kiss good bye to any world
wide cooperative spirit.
The relevant web site is: http://www.defencejournal.com/may99/us-missile.htm
and the defence layers are described here for propinquity:
There are three distinct sets of missile-defence
capabilities at varying levels of technological maturity:
'lower-tier' systems designed for defence of specific
locations or tar- gets - more suitable for TMD; 'upper-tier'
systems intended to intercept warheads in flight, and capable
of covering a much wider area - more appropriate for NMD; and,
a host of sensors, radars and battle- management capabilities
intended to detect missile launches, thereby pro- viding
timely warning of an impend- ing attack. In an optimal
scenario, a spectrum of these capabilities would be arrayed in
layered fashion to ensure the thickest possible defensive
shield. There is also a fourth level of capability, still at a
conceptual stage but suitable in principle for both TMD and
NMD. This focuses on intercepting and destroying missiles
during their initial boost phase-that is, before warheads or
decoys break away and head for their targets. Most attention
has been paid to the potential for airborne or space-based
lasers, or 'kill vehicles' launched from a manned or unmanned
plane. Many of these systems entail an array of complex,
largely unproven technologies. Even if they prove fully
reliable - a big assumption -there will be other daunting
issues to confront, such as cost and disputes over which US
service should develop and control the systems. There will
also be very difficult questions of interpretability with
various US allies. In addition, these projects currently pay
minimal attention to the likely prospect of enemy
countermeasures, including: attempts to paralyse electronic
systems; use of cruise missiles to circumvent
antiballistic-missile shields; and attempts simply to
overwhelm defences with large numbers of missiles. Even more
fundamentally, much of the current debate fails sufficiently
to address the previous US strategic doctrine that a state
such as North Korea would automatically be deterred from
firing its missile at the US by the prospect of massive
retaliation from America's own nuclear inventory. This
arsenal, after all, deterred a much larger Soviet threat
during the Cold War, and its continued presence has led some
analysts to question whether the immense costs of NMD
development are justified. By contrast, 'lower-tier' systems,
primarily suited to TMD, enjoy general support. Enhancements
of existing capabilities have made them cheaper, and the
technology is better proved. There is also less rivalry
between the armed services, since the principal platforms
under development fulfil complementary defence needs. These
systems are the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 designed
to protect land-based US and allied forces, and the Navy Area
Defence (NAD), to be deployed on Aegis-class cruisers to
defend coastal targets. The successful test of a PAC-3
interceptor in mid-March 1999 boosted hopes of initial
deployment by 2001. However, PAC-3 is geared to intercepting
slower-moving incoming missiles at very close range, over a
relatively small area, and cannot
(28 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|