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 - 01:06pm Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15103 of 15116)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Kzuwb9S5Ovm.2707979@.f28e622/16812

bluestar23

Have you read the reports I linked? Let me repost the links. It would be helpful if we were on the same page and could discuss the relative merits of the program, having the same background. Here they are:

Union of Concerned Scientists Missile Defense webpage: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/index.cfm This page links an abundance of resources. It's extensive and will take a considerable effort on your part to get through. In particular, acquaint yourself with the issue of countermeasures. You also will want to read an article published in Foreign Affairs entitled "National Missile Defense: An Indefensible System" at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=582.

Pushing the Limits: The Decision on National Missile Defense http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/libbmd.htm

BUDGETARY AND TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN FOR NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE A Congressional Budget Office study which raises important criticisms of the program. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1984&sequence=0&from=7

For pro-NMD positions, see The Missile Defense Agency http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/mission.html

Center for Defense Information http://www.cdi.org/

Your program interdicts the dirty-bomb, the container-ship Bomb, maybe the "suitcase" Bomb (though this last is just an urban legend).

The suggestions I made aim at counterventing the actual threats we face.

As for the "suitcase bomb" being nothing more than an urban leged, I invite you to read the following:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html

It would see that they're real.

Also, the "dirty-bomb" itself may be difficult to make....no terror gang has the ability to make any sort of real atomic device.

The point is that a "dirty bomb" will be much easier to make than an ICBM, which is extremely difficult to make, to hide, to arm, and to launch. With intensive intelligence gathering, we can stay abreast of what any potential adversary, such as North Korea, is planning and attempting. Without a firm knowledge of exactly how any potential warhead is packaged, designed an interceptor that has a certainty of reaching and destroying its target is a pipe dream.

MORE

wrcooper - 01:07pm Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15104 of 15116)

CONCLUDED

Although you may think a rogue nation would bring a container-ship-bomb, on second thought, why do you think they'd automatically get away with this...? Surely the device would be traced to someone sooner rather than later....

I don't assume they'd get away with it! In fact, I would hope that our surveillance and monitoring would be adequate to detect any such effort. The problem is we're not putting the resources into detecting this type of attack that we are into the much less likely scenario of a limited ICBM attack. It is certainly also possible that we could figure out who the perpetrators are (or were) in the case of an attempt to smuggle a weapon into the country, hopefully before their weapon is detonated. But it would be, probably, much harder to do so. An ICBM, however, would be easily tracked and its territory of origin immediately recognizable.

You forget the status, legitimacy, and power provided by large Atomic Programs and rocketry to Third World countries. That's how they will openly develop.... Why have a nuclear program and not tell anyone, it's a point of great national pride to have it....even the Israelis now openly boast of their new nuke submarines, for other reasons.

No doubt North Korea would love to own an arsenal of ICBMs and brag about them and use them to blackmail their Asian neighbors. If it comes to that, I'm sure the U.S. and its allies will take the appropriate action.

Nations aren't ever likely to develop a Bomb in secret and smuggle it on a ship. Their nation would gain nothing....strategically or otherwise.

Really? If Iran were able to build a nuke and wanted to teach the Infidel a strong lesson, you don't think that cowardly fantatics wouldn't take a crack at blowing up New York City? Why stop with the World Trade Center? I think this is a far, far more likely scenario than what you fear. ICBMs don't grow on trees. They're actually a highly sophisticated technology that cannot be easily developed and implemented. Major intellectual, industrial and technological resources have to be marshalled and unified to pull it off. We'll be watching.

wrcooper - 01:11pm Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15105 of 15116)

bluestar23

Are you aware that George Bush is an avowed Christian fundamentalist? He has publicly used language that suggests he views international relations as a struggle between good and evil, which is divisive and undiplomatic, at best, preventing the possibility of increasing understanding and peaceful resolution of differences.

I personally am appalled that the leader of the free world espouses such an ideology.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense