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 - 02:23pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15571 of 15580)

"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..."

But we deny that it is effective (as MD is) as a Bluff, which may well pan out after years of effort...the fact is, the world doesn't yet know whether USA will be successful or not, so they must to some degree assume worst case scenario....so MD IS a successful bluff, so far, isn't it..?

bluestar23 - 02:28pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15572 of 15580)

Hell, the first "bluff" worked wonders on the repellent Soviet Empire, didn't it..? Reagan said, "We'll develop this MD..."...and they really couldn't. But the Russians didn't know this and feared the high-tech of the US. So, they feared a non-workable program. Yet I understand that the threat of "Star Wars" was so real for Russians that it was one of the factors that led Gorbachev and others to the realization that they couldn't win the Cold War. On top of the already-impossible Arms-Race, this new challenge was just too much to be contemplated. don't forget this played a geo-strategic part in the anti-Soviet thing...

bluestar23 - 02:32pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15573 of 15580)

w/regard to rshow55:

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

I don't know; the scandals over Raines/Blair make the so-called "leadership" of "Punch" himself look not much healthier than Showalter...perhaps they are idiotic soulmates...

bluestar23 - 02:40pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15574 of 15580)

WRC:

" other, more effective means to accomplish our defensive objectives,"

but you don't need one-or-the-other...you can have both...as you see Bush is preparing his new counter-proliferation proposals soon. These will be much tougher and demand some of the inspections and sanctions you have noted...but it would be wrong to expect all nations to forgo BM's....they will not, and can develop under "scientific" cover....just watch Iran, they are lying to the EU about their new "agreement"....whether BM's or the Bomb, nations will continue, despite Bush's efforts, to make these things...

bluestar23 - 02:45pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15575 of 15580)

WRC:

"If there is some secret sensor system, no provision for it is included in the publc budget for NMD."

Can we claim to know the specifics of the MD budget just on the basis of generalized public numbers....there should be secret technology being developed that is carefully hidden, one would reasonably think...all these programs are highly classified, "black" financing, wouldn't they be...

jorian319 - 04:03pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15576 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

so MD IS a successful bluff, so far, isn't it..?

Yes - undeniably IMHO. Which raises the question of how we will know when this is no longer the case. Not a pretty picture.

cantabb - 04:16pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15577 of 15580)

No defense system is going to be 100% foolproof. Just a minor example: follow the professed efficiencies of 'smart' bombs, etc. Much of defense spending in such classified areas is NOT going to be available to the public. If we pursue, we might see the tip of the ice-berg.

bluestar23 - 04:24pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15578 of 15580)

The neat thing about the MD is that it doesn't really have to work, does it? Because it's a defensive system, one never will actually fire it and so test it...its mere existence, even as a program, is enough to have real consequences...One could say one had developed an MD, and set up some dummy missiles behind a fence.....what difference would there be..?

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense