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 - 11:17pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14853 of 14863)

Manu:

"You sure don't help, moron"

What's this gem of wisdom...?

wrcooper - 11:19pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14854 of 14863)

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?"

Yes, indeed. But the threat of such an attack coming from an ICBM is the least likely of all. If we're worried that terrorists or agents of a rogue power will attempt to nuke one of our cities, we should be putting far more effort into intelligence and interdiction than in ABM technology. The container ship scenario is something we might reasonably worry about, but not the arming of an ICBM. Such rockets are expensive and difficult to build and can't be hidden easily. As for guarding against an accidental launch, we have to pursue the same strategies that have worked for forty years. With the collapse of the USSR, we need to be extra-vigilant against a loss of control of those strategic weapons; we have to help Russia keep a firm grip on them and ensure that their safeguards are kept up-to-date and reliable.

klsanford0 - 11:19pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14855 of 14863)

WRC:

"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."

that's true...but military procurement programs like this stretch out over decades, and so must envision over-the-horizon threats as well..

klsanford0 - 11:25pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14856 of 14863)

WRC:

"terrorists or agents of a rogue power will attempt to nuke one of our cities..."

I must admit to being an agnostic on the subject of dirty-Nuke-type Terrorists and container-shipped N-Bombs, smuggled suitcase N-Bombs...one doubts very much the terrorist capability here...

wrcooper - 11:26pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14857 of 14863)

Israel?

Israel is working to develop the Arrow missile and is also using the Patriot. But these are not systems to counter ICBMs. They're aimed at countering short-range tactical missiles. So you're really talking apples and oranges.

An effort to shoot down al-Hussein missiles or SCUDs makes sense for Israel, but I'd warrant that if they suspected that Syria was planning to arm a tactical missile and aim it at them, it wouldn't take more than five minutes for them to send a strike force to annihilate it, long before the Syrians had a chance to strike at them.

The Bush NMD program is an entirely different animal and has to be considered separately. Its mission is different and the rationale for it is different than for Patriot or Arrow technology.

wrcooper - 11:34pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14858 of 14863)

must admit to being an agnostic on the subject of dirty-Nuke-type Terrorists and container-shipped N-Bombs, smuggled suitcase N-Bombs...one doubts very much the terrorist capability here...

But you're a believer in their ability to launch an ICBM at us? Which do you think would be easier to pull off?

klsanford0 - 11:40pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14859 of 14863)

WRC:

"counter ICBMs. They're aimed at countering short-range tactical missiles."

But the Arrow is a tier-two MD aimed relatively high in the incoming ballistic arc...it can defend against a regional misile shot, not just "tactical" (that's a battlefield weapon only, right..?) it (arrow) has quite a large "footprint"....trying to say Arrow somehow isn't MD is rather twisting the reference s for such MD systems....and stating that you personally believe that Israel would instead resort to a airstrike to protect themselves doesn't change the nature of their investment in Arrow...

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense