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 - 01:53pm Oct 18, 2003 EST (# 15215 of 15221)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.dUTFbJ7aPj9.3403226@.f28e622/16891

gisterme:

Let's don't forget that there's no way that a potential adversary can operationally test their countermeasures either. There's no way they could know for sure that they'd work against the defense (unless, of course, we tell them ourselves how to defeat the defense).

They could certainly test their mechanisms in the lab, ensuring they inflate properly, heat properly, etc. They could even launch them in test flights to determine how they stand up to the forces of launch and deploy automatically in space, etc. You’re right that they can’t see how well they’ll defeat an adversary’s ABM system. But I’d rather be on their side of the equation than the defender’s.

Where did you get the idea that anybody intended to deploy incapable interceptors?

Bush intends to deploy ten interceptors in 2004 in Alaska that don’t work. "The system the Bush administration plans to deploy by 2004 will have essentially no defense capability. The technology needed for an effective missile defense system still doesn't exist. All the systems being developed are in early stages of research and development, and will have undergone only rudimentary testing by the time they will be fielded in 2004-6. Operational testing will not have begun and test conditions will remain far from realistic. None of the X-band radars that are central to the system will be built by 2004. (UCS http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/index.cfm)"

It looks as if the beginnings of deployment are going ahead, ready or not.

Yes, Bush wants to deploy a system that’s not ready. That, to many of us who follow this subject, is wrong-headed.

If that's a critical question then it's already been answered by folks more knowledgeable than ourselves. There must be some good confidence among those in the know that the system is or will be workable by the time that long-lead facilities get built.

You have an awfully trusting attitude toward the folks who’re backing this project. Many military weapons projects have been boondoggles in the past, yet you appear to rule out that possibility in the case of the Bush administration’s NMD. Many "folks more knowledgeable than ourselves" think that the program is highly flawed, for some of the reasons I’ve outlined. The system to be deployed in 2004 will not be ready by then; it’s an election year deployment ploy to give GWB something to boast about. Unfortunately, the average Joe won’t understand that the mini-missile defense system in Alaska won’t be able to defend anything.

The answer hinges on whether or not our government feels that what we've got now is better than nothing given the context of the threat. Apparantly it does.

No, the decision to deploy should be based on whether the thing works. It hasn’t been shown to work. The tests done so far don’t show that at all, contrary to what you continue to maintain.

However, what they'll actually do, if anything, is unknown

And this is a good argument for deploying the system? Now there’s a stroke of logic.

rshow55 - 01:55pm Oct 18, 2003 EST (# 15216 of 15221)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Enough has to work well enough.

Enough has to work perfectly so that systems actually work at all.

13575 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.dUTFbJ7aPj9.3403226@.f28e622/15268

C.P. Snow's Science and Government set out two basic lessons P.M.S. Blackett taught military people and scientists during WWII and later - "one to each."

" The lesson to the military was that you cannot fight wars on gusts of emotion."

" The lesson to the scientists was that if are giving advice, you have to convince yourself that you yourself would act so, if you were responsible for action."

Good advice if people keep their heads.

Experience shows, though, that if people are desperate enough - threatened enough - they'll fight to the death. That may not be reasonable - but there are plenty of instances in the past of military groups being unreasonable.

If we're desperate to have missile defense work - we'll do what we can to get it - even if it "doesn't make sense to" - for similar reasons.

If the NKs re desperate enough - they may attack.

Solutions that make everybody more comfortable - in the situations they are really in - with the fears and "logics" that they really have - are well worth looking for.

. . .

( And people like me - who have are willing to give advice - ought to take their own. )

That isn't always easy to do.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense