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 - 08:00pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14925 of 14963)

.WRC:

" I pretty much view George Bush as the Second Coming of the Beast,..."

this attitude will not help you in judging the effectiveness of MD systems...

MD, which started with Reagan, is not necessarily first or ever a response to a particular type of missile threat. It is not designed necessarily with any types of attack in mind. So much of the criticism of various technical flaws is secondary, as are financial concerns (to a degree).

The reason for MD was an attempt to break out of the MAD, to secure peace & stability, without it logically entailing the destruction of one's own country. This is a laudable and necessary national security goal, which frees a nation's population held hostage....by an unending threat. One could even say MAD is unethical, or un-Constitutional, as no President should normally agree to put his own country in such danger. Pursuing MD is also purely defensive, and thus should be entirely acceptable to the world community. Having a large, well-funded programme ensures rapid deployment of the asset.

klsanford0 - 08:05pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14926 of 14963)

MD is the theory that departs from MAD, and is entirely ethical and should be a high priority for any government. No other method has proven successful in reducing the threat to the point where the USA is even moderately safe from ICBM's.....basically Governments cannot and should not morally continue with a policy (MAD) that puts at endless risk all of its citizens...

wrcooper - 08:14pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14927 of 14963)

klsanford0

I would be entirely in favor of a workable BMD system. Of course it would be desirable. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's NMD program is hopelessly flawed and ill-conceived. That's why I oppose it. If it were indeed possible--in the foreseeable future--to implement a BMD system that was cost-effective and technologically reliable, within a reasonable margin of error, I would be in favor of it strongly.

That is not the case with Bush's BMD program; therefore I oppose it.

I can certainly debate the pros and cons of ballistic missile defense, regardless of my political affiliation or sympathies. I opposed the program when it was first put forward by Clinton. I opposed it under Reagan. BMD has evolved since Reagan's Star Wars proposal, but not as much as its proponents would want us to believe. It's still a boondoggle. Only now this president wants to field an abysmally ineffective system, utterly unready for implementation, simply to ballyhoo his staunch commitment to defense come election time. It's sickening to me.

I am glad you're willing to discuss actuall BMD issues. Also, I'm glad we have some disagreements. That keeps it interesting!

klsanford0 - 08:28pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14928 of 14963)

Well, if you opposed the MD under Clinton then at least you have a solid track record.....don't you think, after about twenty years work on this, you should start changing your mind....what's the point of still being against it when it's in place?

rshow55 - 08:37pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14929 of 14963)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

It doesn't work worth a damn - and the illusion that it does - that it can is dangerous - and justifies stupid decisions.

That seems a pretty good reason.

(34 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense