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.

wrcooper - 11:00pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14848 of 14863)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.g0RGbgQ1Nxp.2206191@.f28e622/16529 (#s 14818,-20, -21, -23, -27-29)

klsanford0

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 ....

The current threat does not warrant the amount of expenditure the Bush administration has allotted to it. I recommend you study the threat estimate in the study "Pushing the Limits" http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/nmdbook00threat1.htm A distinction must be drawn between what is possible and what is likely in terms of threats. If our decision-making on national security initiatives is made entirely on considerations of what is possible, we would lack the focus that is necessary to deal with more probable or imminent threats. An attack with an ICBM by a rogue nation, such as North Korea or Iran, is not likely at this time, nor do current intelligence estimates rank it highly.

The Chinese have currently between ten and fifteen ICBM's of highly uncertain quality, and do not have the USA-style production facilities to greatly add to this arsenal in the near future.

You mentioned "communists". The only great power—or potentially great power that flies a red flag is China. North Korea poses no ICBM threat to the continental United States now or in the foreseeable future.

I believe the Chinese missiles are only capable of hitting westcoast of USA.

Well, that would be pretty disastrous, don’t you think? In any case, such an attack is no more likely than any of the others feared by the Bush administration. Read the assessment I linked.

The existence of a new threat, logically, does not obviate the old ones; It simply adds to the list of possible threats...in a world of rapid BM proliferation...

The point is that Bush’s NMD program costs way more than any possible benefit it may have. The threat is minimal compared to others that do exist. It makes no fiscal or military sense to be allocated so much national treasure to the proposal. It’s hugely misconceived.

MORE

wrcooper - 11:01pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14849 of 14863)

CONCLUDED

MD is designed as I've said, to ward off future threats...who are these threats....Japan, (who knows the future..?) Iran, (word is about of a new Saudi-Egyptian nuclear effort)

Good heavens. Japan? Look, we can’t be worrying at present about future possibilities that, at least at the moment, look absurdly unlikely. There is no threat on the horizon of a penny-ante rogue nation getting hold of an ICBM. As I stated earlier, a far more sensible course of action would be to bolster our intelligence capabilities in countries of concern, such as North Korea or Iran, and, if we identify a real threat—which at present is unlikely—then we can take appropriate pre-emptive action to eliminate it.

The thread Title and Header do not specify this....

That has been the focus of our conversation so far. What other nations do is relevant but not of particular interest at present. No other nuclear power is pursuing a vigorous anti-missile missile program at present.

and your comment allows you to elide the rational point that if this MD program is so valueless in its current configuration, why are so many other nations pursuing the generally similar MD goals right now?...

Which ones? And what are they doing, precisely?

in fact the MD idea is catching on worldwide, isn't it..? More and more countries want this technology every day....

Specifics, please.

klsanford0 - 11:13pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14850 of 14863)

WRC:

"The point is that Bush’s NMD program costs way more than any possible benefit it may have."

The catastrophe of even one single reasonably large urban nuclear detonation would seem to be worth a tremendous expense to avoid....how is one to accurately judge your term "possible benefit?"

wrcooper - 11:14pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14851 of 14863)

Correction

I wrote:

It makes no fiscal or military sense to be allocated so much national treasure to the proposal. It’s hugely misconceived.

That should read

It makes no fiscal or military sense to allocate so much national treasure to the proposal. It’s hugely misconceived.

klsanford0 - 11:15pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14852 of 14863)

WRC:

" No other nuclear power is pursuing a vigorous anti-missile missile program at present."

Forgotten Israel...?

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense