New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (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."

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense