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 - 08:31pm Oct 24, 2003 EST (# 15585 of 15593)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.a1e8b2XfREj.4725369@.f28e622/17283

jorian319

You wrote in the post linked above and others:

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.

I certainly agree that a full-scale ABM effort would result in another arms race. That was the fear that prompted the original ABM treaty. The current system is not being promoted as a bargaining chip, but as a benign nuclear umbrella to shield us against an inadvertant accidental launch by incompetent ex-Soviet missile-minders or against a nasty nuclear spitball hurled by a vindictive little rat nation. I might have more confidence if Bush & Co. volunteered loudly and proudly that the US will distribute its anti-missile missile technology to anybody and everyone, thus guaranteeing that no nation will ever be the victim of an "accident" or a premeditated first strike. Yeah, right.

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.

Ride 'em, cowboy. You must be a popular dude with your neighbors out there in horse country. :-)

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

It's been incredibly effectivem politically, which is probably why the administration is going ahead with deploying an unworkable system at great taxpayer expense. But I think this is potentially costly bluff. That's what I meant in an earlier post when I called the NMD a house of cards.

None... until some crackpot decides to see if it works.

Wouldn't that be embarassing? We spend umpteen billions for a shield and some ratbag little potentate punctures it with a flotilla of balloons and a black market warhead.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense