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 - 01:02pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3669 of 3671)

Lou:

If I am not mistaken, what you are saying is that a workable and reliable defense against ICBMs would be desirable. There is a non-negligible threat of an ICBM attack from several hostile states, and, if it were possible to neutralize such a threat, we should do so.

I agree in principle that a BMD system would be worthwhile. However, I have a number of reservations about developing one. I'm not referring to the chance that taxpayers will be buying a pig in a poke. I agree with critics who say that the technology isn't there yet. The military is overrating the quality of the system as it currently stands. I nevertheless agree with you that current failures don't necessarily forecast future failures. A workable system is possible, given enough time, money and breatkthroughs.

My reservations concern the geopolitical ramifications of such a system. I'm afraid it would be fundamentally destabilizing. Instead of promoting disarmament and denuclearization of international armed forces, it could stimulate the efforts of hostile powers to speed up or enhance their ICBM technology to ensure its continued effectiveness as a deterrent against the United States. If the U.S. developed a workable BMD system, that could produce the opposite result from what we're looking for, that is, increased safety and peace of mind. The world could become a more dangerous place than it is already.

What we should be doing is taking the initiative to spearhead international disarmament. We could set a powerful moral example if we made the first concessions. We have more than enough warheads in stock to take such a risk, and we can prudently maintain the capability to build new warheads in short order. Let's put the Chinese and North Koreans on the spot in the international court of opinion by showing the world that we are more interested in a stable long-term peace than they are.

Meanwhile, we should be strengthening our intelligence and interdiction capabilities to make sure we know of any developing threats and are able to handle them if and when they arise.

rshow55 - 01:42pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3670 of 3671)

Great posting, Cooper !

You, Mazza, and I surely agree with Cooper's language above, this far:

" a workable and reliable defense against ICBMs would be desirable. There is a non-negligible threat of an ICBM attack from several hostile states, and, if it were possible to neutralize such a threat, we should do so.

I think Mazza and I would agree about this, too - - though with much different views of context:

" IF a missile defense program looks fully practical on paper - - or requires technical breakthroughs that can be reasonably expected -- then there's a very strong argument for funding it."

I'm not sure Mazza believes that things can be checked "on paper." I think they can be, and should be. I've got a PE ticket -and I'm taking a very conventional view about this. The engineers I know all agree that "on paper" checking is a vital part of responsible engineering practice. It can't do everything. But it can rule out a lot - and do so with certainty for all practical purposes.

I think that the more you are in favor of programs that HAVE A CHANCE of working -- the more reasonable it is to abandon programs that can't possibly work - since both financial and engineering resources are scarce -- and since false assumptions can be so dangerous.

The MD programs that I know about -- and that people like the Center for Defense Information seem to know about -- the ones that have soaked up the great preponderance of the money so far --- aren't feasible in any reasonable tactical sense. Based on what I can find out, anyway.

I think these programs should be shot right between the eyes. To make room for things that might be worthwhile - in missile defense, or elsewhere.

I think there are things that CAN be done. But if they are done, there is a real likelihood of other military consequences. Especially this.

The breakthroughs that make MD work are very likely to make it easy to shoot down all manned aircraft either in our arsenal or under development -- and would probably make it easy and cost effective to knock down our drones, too.

An argument, I believe, for getting right answers, expeditiously -- so that reasonable decisions, in the national interest - get made.

A trillion dollars is a terrible amount of money to waste -- and we're committing something like that much to military aircraft that are going to be sitting ducks, if a few easy looking technical advances get made.

rshow55 - 01:44pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3671 of 3671)

As for disarmament -- I think that ways to getting that practically accomplished are opening up - and that America should investigate them more carefully than it is now doing. We should do it in ways that increase our safety - and that we can feel confident about.

A lot of people who have, and have had, a lot of rank in the military and the rest of the government agree with that.

A bunch of them got together and signed a petition to that effect just before the election. It was interesting how easily they were turned away, under current rules that don't force checking.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense