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 - 11:51am Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14981 of 14988)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.uicsbaqOOYn.2469232@.f28e622/16687

klsanford0

First, I'm glad your sabattical from the forum lasted less than 24 hours. I was beginning to think I would be the only participant discussing BMD. Welcome back!

You wrote:

I believe my posts last night successfully argued the underlying rationale for MD with regard to the previous MAD Doctrine. Time to move on and discuss current systems architecture.

What we agree upon is that a reliable missile defense system would indeed be morally justifiable. However, what the Bush NMD system threatens to inaugurate is another arms race involving offensive versus defensive weapons. Our adversaries will no doubt either add to their arsenals or else invest h eavily in technology to defeat our countermeasures. There is no defensive system on the horizon that will achieve the level of security that warrants the investment or the risk.

It is not time to "move on and discuss systems architecture." No case has been made that any system under development by the Bush administration is capable of defending us, even in a minimal fashion.

MAD was a policy adopted during the Cold War to deter pre-emptive agression by either of the superpowers. The NMD that the Bush administration wants to deploy is not a replacement for MAD, because the threat it allegedly guards against is not a massive pre-emptive first strike by a superpower, but rather a limited launch of one or a small handful of missiles by a rogue nation, a terrorist group, or an accidental launch by a nuclear power, such as Russia. MAD was aimed at a supposedly "rational" enemy who feared retributive annihilation. None of the threats addressed by the NMD program, would be forestalled by a fear of a massive counterstrike. In any case, a rogue nation would be foolish to use an ICBM, supposing they could build one or steal one, to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US homeland. They'd use low-tech methods of delivery that were less traceable, such as a container ship or a backpack.

The argument that we should go ahead and build a missile defense system has not been made--not by a long shot (pun intended).

jorian319 - 12:00pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14982 of 14988)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Gisterme has worked hard on this board -

Uh...NO. He has told you numerous times. Now repeat after me:

En

Ter

Tain

Ment

Today gisterme asked what it was that I'd been trying to accomplish on the board

And the day before that cantabb asked the same thing, and earlier I asked the same thing. And even earlier Coop asked the same thing.

And you still haven't answered. WHY?

jorian319 - 12:15pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14983 of 14988)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

I have been involved with several successful business start-ups. One of the most critical and important things from the get-go is to develop, express and maintain awareness of a short, concisely worded, meaningful, and applicable mission statement. Without it, there is no focus, no common goal, no measure of success, and there may be a problem with the corporate charter itself.

It would be interesting to see if anyone here could muster a sentence or short paragraph that would accurately express their "mission" in participating in this forum. I think gisterme has said it well for himself with one word - entertainment. I think Will could likely state his purpose in short form. As for the rest - I doubt it. But it would be interesting to see.

In particular, I think it behooves he who makes claims of progress or effective work (that would be YOU, rshow55), to hold those claims up to the standard of a pre-existing statement of purpose. In the absence of any standard, claims of progress or effectiveness are simple ego-stroking exercises.

To avoid a continued appearance of purposelessness and/or self service, I strongly urge Robert to tackle the most important and urgent question facing him and his ongoing "work" in this forum -

WTF DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING???!!!

bluestar23 - 12:31pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14984 of 14988)

WRCooper to klsanford0:

"I'm glad your sabattical from the forum lasted less than 24 hours."

You can never tell when some posters appear and disappear, can one....?

I am also interested in the MD....

bluestar23 - 12:42pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14985 of 14988)

My Mission Statement: Entertainment....conversational jousting is fun.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense