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.

gisterme - 05:37pm Oct 17, 2003 EST (# 15206 of 15221)

"...You will note how little attention he gives to technical issues, suggesting toward the end of the article that recent tests and PAC-3 "give the lie" to critics of the Bush administration's NMD program who cite its technical problems..."

That's pretty much the way I see it. Four out of seven. :-)

However, we have had some pretty extensive disscussions about this in the past on this thread. I spent a lot of time there for a while showing by public domain sources that there's no need for any great technological breakthroughs to make either the midcourse intercept layer of the missile shield or the ABL feasible. I did that by showing existing technologies in other areas that have to perform at levels of precision and reliability that are no less than required for NMD interceptors or to guide the ABL laser.

Although there's no doubt that the MD system will have some unique adaptations and may incorporate some real and new technological advances, those are still only incrementally beyond what came before. No quantum leap of technology is required. It will be an integration of modifications to systems we already know how to make.

If there has been a quantum leap, then GREAT! :-) That would mean that in about five to ten years we taxpayers will be seeing some cool new products appearing in the marketplace.

"...What struck me, however, and was valuable to observe, was the extent to which missile defense has become an international lever, at least as depicted by Berman..."

That doesn't surprise me at all. I've always felt (and said here many times) that once the MD ball gets rolling, lots of folks will jump aboard. That's because the'll finally realize that MAD is really over. In my view, proliferation of purely defensive systems is far preferable to proliferation of offensive ones. I don't feel threatened at all if my neighbor wants to protect himself from attack. I only feel threatened when my neighbor wants things that he can attack me with.

"...It's a driving force in attempts to restructure the international military balance of power..."

If the "restructured" military balance of power winds up making ballistic missiles obsolete, that's fine with me. That's because once ballistic missiles are obsolete and all gone, the defense against them will gradually dissapear as well. Sort of like what happens with biological antibodies. They appear when there's a disease to be cast off and then dissappear until they're needed again.

"...Yet, from my perspective, given what I know about the technology's inherent limitations,..."

Okay, there's the decoy thing that you and I don't agree about, and we've already gone around about that; but other than that, just what would you say the technology's inherent limitations are? We can have another go at that previous discussion I mentioned if you'd like, Will. At least it would be on topic. :-)

"...the new order is built on a false premise, which makes it vulnerable to rapid crumbling. It reminds me of the Maginot line.

What false premise is that?

Wow. That's a bit weird that you should mention the Maginot line, Will. Just last night I was thinking about that. You know, the Maginot line was actually quite effective at the task it was designed to do. The Germans didn't attack it much until it was surrounded. I thought to myself what a perfect example of a case where the door was barred but the windows left open. The results were not pretty. I know we can do better than that.

gisterme - 06:02pm Oct 17, 2003 EST (# 15207 of 15221)

"...The report states that there is a "peculiarly Japanese" logic to deploying missile defenses, as they are inherently defensive in character and thus present fewer problems for Japan's "Peace Constitution"..."

I might also add, for its neighbors.

Thanks bluestar. That's a pretty good example of what I was saying just above. The whole world would be a better place if everybody took that attitude toward defense. The need might eventually even go away if folks could go long enough without feeling threatened.

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense