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 - 08:44pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15650 of 15658)

the "Concerned" Scientists themselves:

"UCS has been promoting an alternative US nuclear posture for the next decade, one that would both reduce existing nuclear threats and enhance the nonproliferation regime, as detailed in the report Toward True Security (see the Related Links box above). Its recommendations include:

a US declaration that the sole purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter and, if necessary, respond to the use of nuclear weapons by another country;

the consequent adoption of a US nuclear no-first-use policy;

a US rejection of rapid-launch options, and a change in deployment practices to provide for the launch of US nuclear forces in hours or days rather than minutes;

the elimination of all US “tactical” nuclear weapons, intended for use on the battlefield;

verified unilateral reductions to a total of 1,000 strategic warheads (including deployed and stored), accompanied by warhead dismantlement;

a commitment to further reductions in the number of nuclear weapons"

See what I mean about these guys...."further reductions" from only 1,000 warheads which means "None" to them, and sooner rather than later....as I've stated: it's Unilateral USA Nuclear Dis-Armament they are proposing, in a hostile world where many other countries possess hundreds of Nuclear Bombs, which of course the "Concerned" Scientists have calmly "forgotten" will not be removed...the USA cannot "force" other Nations to disarm under any circumstances. It's a reckless and unprofessional proposal that would destroy the National Security of the USA forever...it's downright Crazy...

bluestar23 - 08:49pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15651 of 15658)

The "Concerned" Scientists' proposal itself uses the word "unilateral" and would leave the Russia as the world's foremost Nuclear power by far, as they would still have many thousands of warheads, as they currently do, and Russia is an unstable country....handing them world Nuclear dominance would be a lunatic idea...a new General Lebed with his missiles....

lchic - 09:28pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15652 of 15658)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Isn't every country only a step away from instability?

What is it that holds nations together?

If democracy is a part of it -- then how democratic are key Nations?

Where does power lie?

How responsible are the ones in whose hands power is mustered?

jorian319 - 10:26pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15653 of 15658)
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

Why is the sky blue?

How deep is the ocean?

How do birds fly?

Which way is up?

wrcooper - 11:39pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15654 of 15658)

bluestar23

I understand your difference of opinion with the UCS regarding disarmament. Thank you for expressing that. What I am wondering about, however, is your statement that the UCS's criticisms of the NMD program are suspect because of their position on disarmament. In other words, why do you feel that their specific technical objections to the NMD are not credible? Furthermore, I asked you what sources you would trust, and why would you trust them. I hope you'll address a response specifically to these questions.

bluestar23 - 12:34am Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15655 of 15658)

"criticisms of the NMD program are suspect because of their position on disarmament."

Yes..if this group cannot be trusted to comprehend the basics of the nuclear balance of power, then there is certainly no reason to trust their NMD stance, which is presumably built upon the quicksand of their basic Nuclear Policy stance......and is perhaps a separate issue from purely technical analysis which you unsuccessfully conflate with the words "In other words.."

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense