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.

klsanford0 - 01:49pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14815 of 14823)

I feel perhaps WRC is ignoring the proliferation of nuclear-tipped missiles....we all know more and more nations have this capability, including Japan, even Brazil....a whole host of nations have the necessary building blocks for this proliferation. If the notion of MD is so fanciful, why are there Arrow II MD in Israel? Why does Taiwan now want the USA help on MD for themselves...? Also Japan may develop the MD, and other nations are thinking about it very seriously....

wrcooper - 02:38pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14816 of 14823)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.hRgzbrokNWv.2110861@.f28e622/16525

klsanford0

You wrote, et. seq.:

No, you are wrong.

Hmm. You might phrase your disagreement more politely. I recommend using words like, "In my opinion, I think..." or "I disagree with you, because..." or "I cannot agree with you, because...." It then is quite clear that you think the other person is wrong about what he's saying, without suggesting you have the last word or an absolute lock on the truth. Remember, these are complex issues in which many knowledgeable and sophisticated intellectuals disagree, so it behooves us to be careful not to address those with whom we disagree as if they were misinformed, stupid or stubbornly obtuse. Just say, "Hey, in my opinion what you're saying isn't right, and here's why!" That'd accomplish your purpose without causing any possible offense.

You seem to think that the west faces only one type of threat, that of terrorism....

Not at all.

One seeks to protect against the unknown as well....against threats not yet imminent, right..?

As I said earlier, it would be reasonable to me to invest in a modest R&D program for BMD. But the current program exceeds reasonableness by many orders of magnitude and robs other national security initiatives of needed funds.

In fact the 9/11 shows most clearly, not what you say, but precisely the utter unpredictablity of the threat, n'est-ce pas...?

What 9/11 shows is that the sort of threat posed by ICBMs is way down the list of likely threats. Our enemies can find much more practical and low-cost means to deliver WMD against us.

It is of no moment that the MD of whatever type does not now work well, or currently at all. Presumably, it may well work in the future. You do not know that it will not.

No, I do not know it will not, but that's not my point. I repeat: I am for a modest program of R&D to continue to explore our options. However, the decisions we make on national security initiatives should be based on present-day priorities and the most probable threats. If we want to lower the risk of a rogue nation acquiring the capability of launching a missile at us, we should invest more in intelligence and survellance; then preemptive measures could be taken if a real threat emerged. If we're worried about ex-Soviet missiles falling into the wrong hands, then let's work harder at monitoring these weapons and aiding the Russians in controlling them. The current Bush program is infeasible and wrong-headed--it should be scrapped before any more valuable resources get squandered on it.

MORE

wrcooper - 02:38pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14817 of 14823)

CONCLUDED

I don't like living with some moronic Communist pointing a gun directly at my head...that's not how I live my life.

Who's pointing a gun at your head right now? The "limited" nuclear defensive shield proposed by Bush is not intended to deflect a massive attack by China or Russia. It's been conceived to ward off small attacks by rogue nations or terrorists. Who among the latter group is a current threat...to us?

I feel perhaps WRC is ignoring the proliferation of nuclear-tipped missiles....we all know more and more nations have this capability, including Japan, even Brazil....a whole host of nations have the necessary building blocks for this proliferation. If the notion of MD is so fanciful, why are there Arrow II MD in Israel? Why does Taiwan now want the USA help on MD for themselves...? Also Japan may develop the MD, and other nations are thinking about it very seriously....

The Bush plan--being promulgated for the alleged benefit of US citizens--is what we're discussing, not BMD for other nations. Remember, the Bush system can't defend against missile launched from submarines just off our shores or from short-range. It's possible target is long-range ICBMs. If China wanted to strike at us, it could position a boomer off Washington, DC, and let fly a SLBM, and we'd stand no chance. The only way Japan could defend against a North Korean attack would be with terminal phase defenses. That's not what the Bush plan is about. That's not where the billions are going.

klsanford0 - 03:06pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14818 of 14823)

"reasonable to me to invest in a modest R&D program for BMD."

but, sir, perhaps it is simply impossible to spend only a "modest" amount of money and have the necessary R&D....surely any research would have to be, by the very nature of "rocketry", incredibly expensive....the moonshot cost $100 Billion ....

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense