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.

mazza9 - 01:16pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3609 of 3637)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert:

I disagree with your basic premise that missile defense cannot be made to work. The technical aspects of any problem are solvable if the right minds and talents can be brought to bear. Kelly's Skunk Works at Lockheed are a prime example of a genius with the mission and resources to accomplish it. The Manhatten Project accomplished so much in such a short period of time. Oppenheimer's genius ability plus an entire nation's resources made it happen.

Why is it that in all our literature the story line of Alladin's lamp point out our human failings? Because we are human and cannot control as we think we can. I like to test premises by saying, "If I could wave my magic wand..." What would I do? Being Type II I would eliminate diabetes. Of course, I don't have a magic wand but how much Medicare money and suffering would be saved if this one disease is eliminated. We cured polio, albeit Diabetes is more complex. Yet gene therapy is a distinct possibility.

Back to the point missile defense is, in my opinion doable. It's the hate, deception, and ..well the 7 deadly sins of humanity that must be corrected. And that is more difficult then a mere technological solution. You know, this forum asks, "Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?"

I believe that the first question is the technical aspects and the answer is "Yes". the second question is the psychological one and the answer at the present time is "Yes" its necessary.

Mazzaroth, (check Space Exploration silliness)

wrcooper - 01:45pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3610 of 3637)

Lou,

Ballistic missile defense may be doable, given enough resources, breakthroughs and time. I don't think a workable system is impossible. It would be foolish to say so.

However, suppose that we spent billions of dollars and many years to develop a reliable and workable BMD system and succeeded. It would only encourage our enemies to manufacture crude, low-tech alternative weapons.

The danger we face isn't from ICBMs. It's from somebody with a nuke in a backpack or a phial of toxic bioagent. If a rogue nation or terrorist group wanted to commit mass murder in America, it wouldn't need an expensive and easily detectable ICBM force. That would incur either a American preemptive counterstrike or else a catastrophic retaliatory attack. Launching a missile at the U.S. would be suicidal.

All that such an enemy would need is a small stockpile of radioactive material and a few technically savvy ideologues to assemble a low-yield but effective device. I believe blueprints for such bombs are publicly available. How hard would it be, then, to smuggle it into this country? All they'd have to do is stick it in any of the thousands of bales of marijuana or shipments of heroin that land on our shores every year.

I think we'd be much wiser to spend our billions on programs to promote peace and economic development in the hot spots that breed terrorists. Solve the problem, not treat only the symptoms. We'd also be better off spending it in getting better field intelligence and in sharpening our interdiction abilities.

I'd like to see lots more money be put into high-powered laser and tracking R&D for the eventual development of lightcraft technology. But antimissile-missiles and space-based kinetic missile defenses are nothing more than short-sighted and wasteful pork.

Even if they worked, they couldn't protect us from the real threat.

mazza9 - 01:57pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3611 of 3637)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

WRCooper:

The Chinese and North Koreans are developing ICBMs. Now who do you suppose they are targeting? Theater weapons that can stop Katyuska attack missile, SCUDS etc are also necessary. If directed energy weapons on an aircraft can be used for tactical employment then we've just upgraded the bow and arrow one more time.

Of course, I'd rather see the iodine laser used for meteor destruction and alien (UFO!) assaults. If that is to occur then the R&D money has to come from somewhere and in today's climate that's the military not the NASA budget.

Mazzaroth son of Cthullu!

wrcooper - 02:19pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3612 of 3637)

mazza9 8/10/02 1:57pm

We've been living with the threat of ICBMs for 50 years. It's nothing new. China and North Korea aren't any more likely to attack the U.S. than the ex-Soviet Union was. Probably less so.

BMD has been sold as a defense against terrorists and rogue nations--small-scale attacks, not massive strikes such as China might launch.

My argument still stands. Let's pursue disarmament with the big boys and handle the small fry with interdiction and economic development.

(25 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense