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.

bluestar23 - 11:34am Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15565 of 15580)

Showalter:

"Beautiful, beautiful posts by Lchic"

"She is a world asset - the most valuable mind I've "never been near".

lchic:

Where have all the horses gone

long time passing

gone to horse-graze everyone

when will they ever learn?

Heh, Heh......Just about says it all, doesn't it...??

cantabb - 11:39am Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15566 of 15580)

bluestar23 - 11:27am Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15564 of 15564)

I didn't see the recent Showalter posts...

He said he was going to call NYT today. But before that an hour-plus discussion with the "World Asset" all the way in Australia.

So, busy, I guess. But I expect he'll post after the NYT negotiation:

You, NYT do this, this and that {before he can gracefully bow out, like a Maestro ?), or else, I, Rshowlter, will continue to 'work' on the MD forum. I can imagine Sulzberger (NYT) shivering in his shoes.

jorian319 - 12:16pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15567 of 15580)
The earth spin rate is slowing 2 msc/day as evidenced by the additon of a leap second every 500 days - James "I failed math" Nienhuis

I can imagine Sulzberger (NYT) shivering in his shoes.

I can imagine him laughing his butt off "whothehell is this crackpot and WTF is he talking about??"

cantabb - 12:32pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15568 of 15580)

Jorian:

cantabb: I can imagine Sulzberger (NYT) shivering in his shoes.

Facetiously !

wrcooper - 12:48pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15569 of 15580)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.jPSLbZfbRWP.4630194@.f28e622/17276

bluestar23:

You wrote, et seq:

I think you're pretty much hanging your whole anti-MD hat on this one issue of counter-measures.

I have stated many other objections, including the fundamental points that the threat against which the system aims to countervent does not exist; the more efficacious any ABM system is, the more incentive an adversary would have to use low-tech alternative delivery methods; the potential to stimulate a destabilizing arms race, rather than promote global disarmament; the lack of an adquate testing program, using realistic targets and decoys; and the availability of other, more effective means to accomplish our defensive objectives, such as enhanced intelligence gathering, judicious and concerted political and economic leverage, and the development of a contingency force specialized in the interdiction of nuclear arms and missiles before they're used against us. There are other technical objections, too, involving ABM systems contemplated for intercepting missiles in the launch and terminal phases.

You should expand your anti-MD argument to be more than a one-trick pony.

Perhaps you have missed some of my posts, in which I discussed other objections.

It's too easy for those who know about counter-measures to poke some reasonable holes in your arguments. It's not a thing which can be relied totally to defeat the MD, it seems..

If it were so easy to counter the countermeasures argument against the deployment of the NMD system, then why hasn't it been presented. The government could effectively quiet criticisms of the system based on the analysis that it's vulnerable to simple and inexpensive countermeasures by A) conducting tests using reaslistic warheads and countermeasures, simulating an actual attack as nearly as possible, in which the defender is unaware of the attacker's timing, target and precise countermeasures capabilities.; and B) releasing some minimal disclosure of its capabilities, without disclosing enough to permit an enemy to design countermeasures that could defeat our capabilities. Bear in mind that the government has already made public that the sensors to be used involve only X-band radar and SBIRs. If there is some secret sensor system, no provision for it is included in the publc budget for NMD.

jorian319 - 01:29pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15570 of 15580)
The earth spin rate is slowing 2 msc/day as evidenced by the additon of a leap second every 500 days - James "I failed math" Nienhuis

NMD, in order to be effective in any way other than as a bluff, would have to be a perpetual work in progress for all the reasons Will has touched on. I could see it growing totally out of proportion to the GDP until it's the national white elephant.

It would be easier just to go ahead and nuke 'em now. Nuke anyone who has any capability that might develop into delivery of nukes by ICBM, and be done with it.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense