New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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.

lchic - 10:15pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14482 of 14505)
~~~~ 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 14505)

Looneychic is getting a little irritated......

fredmoore - 10:24pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14484 of 14505)

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

(21 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense