New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(14988 previous messages)
wrcooper
- 01:31pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (#
14989 of 14994)
In re <a
href="/webin/WebX?14@13.bk9QblwrOGX.2485514@.f28e622/16698">bluestar23
10/14/03 12:52pm</a> (#'s 14987,14988)
bluestar23
I'm delighted that another participant is taking an
interest in missile defense! Good on ya, mate.
Yes, at this stage, but wouldn't even a
country capable of a large firststrike (Russia) be very
concerned about a possibly much-expanded MD in the future?
One with perhaps hundreds of MD rockets, thousands....that
would degrade even a massive strike so severely that one
could no longer be sure of its "counterforce"
efficacy...thereby rendering one vulnerable to a devastating
second strike anyway. So in my book MD is a threat to large
strikes down the road somewhat...
Well, yes. A Reaganesque Star Wars system that successfully
defended against a massive first strike would indeed affect
the strategic balance of power. That fear is precisely why the
ABM Treaty was enacted. Bush has tried to sell the next
generation of missile defense (Son of Star Wars or Baby BMD)
NMD program as a limited defensive capability, trying to gloss
over the concerns Russia has about the US gaining a
significant strategic advantage. The problem is that the Bush
program accomplishes none of its goals, while draining monies
and Congressional attention away from the real threats. We
could guard against the threats ostensibly mentioned as the
raison d'être for NMD in other, more effective ways. As I've
said before, with beefed-up intelligence-gathering, political
and economic bartering, and interdiction if necessary as a
last resort.
Other countermeasures, equally difficult or
impossible to manufacture, would not be allowed to take the
place of the basic rocket programs that confer such high
status in the third world.
The analysis that many experts have made doesn't count on
our adversaries building larger missile arsenals, but on
building much less expensive yet fully effective
countermeasures that would launch in tandem with actual
warheads. Read the analysis of the Union of Concerned
Scientists at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=581.
Bush wants to deploy a system that is incapable of
fulfilling its mission and gives us a false sense of security.
That is a waste and is unwise. We should be addressing the
real threats that exist with measures that can actually
protect us. The Bush NMD progrtam fails on all counts.
cantabb
- 01:53pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (#
14990 of 14994)
fredmoore - 11:38am Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14979 of
14989)
fredmoore - 10:47am Oct 14, 2003 EST (#
14973 of 14973) : Cantabb: A Picayune & a Sore LOSER!
KAEP: 1. A 10 year plan .............I win
.... THIS game!
One more run of His Master's Voice "loop test" ....
More Barnyard from fredmoore-schoolyard .....
The problem with not comprehending that you
ARE in the BARNYARD cantabb, is that you will be looking the
other way when the farmer comes around with his axe.
When you can't explain yourself -- and another "loop test"
run, another sloganeering is not it -- there's NOTHING to
"comprehending."
I don't expect a chook like you to
understand the complexities inherent in a KAEP defence
doctrine, so I will continue to shove it in your beak for
the benefit of others who may come to appreciate its power.
Keep pecking!
In barnyard you remain. Just one pony show,
"Irregardless."
(4 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|