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.

gisterme - 03:12pm Oct 14, 2002 EST (# 4867 of 4870)

commondata 10/9/02 8:35am

"...There are four main arguments against missile defense (aside from technical feasibility):

[Stupidity] It is an expensive waste..."

Now that's an entirely subjective judgement, commondata. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the folks in some city, say London, that's spared a nuclear blast by a BMD system would probably be of a differing opinion. So far you've shown no evidence that it's a waste.

"...[Deception] The danger of rogue missile attack has been greatly exaggerated..."

It may be true that today, Iraq, Iran or North Korea can't deliver a nuclear weapon by means of a ballistic missile (we hope). That's public knowledge, no deception involved. However, if those folks continue the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles at the rate that they currently are, it won't be long before they could launch such an attack. I'd rather have the argement against development of a BMD be politically based than based upon nuclear blackmail. There's not much point in closing the gate after the horses are already out of the barn.

"...[Hypocrisy] The United States is itself increasingly dependent on its own missiles, especially cruise missiles, while trumpeting warnings over the dangers of missile proliferation and possible missile attack on the United States..."

The number of US and Russian nuclear-armed ballistic missles has decreased considerably since the cold war in case you haven't noticed, commondata. However before those numbers can approach zero, proliferation of similar weapons around the world must be stopped.

So far as conventional weapons are concerned, such as the cruise missiles and smart-bombs we've all seen on TV, I'd say that the more effective they are, the less the likleyhood that a nuclear weapon will ever be used.

"...[Aggression] The great damage from deploying missile defenses is to intensify competition in nuclear weapons..."

The NMD being developed is not aimed at or capable of stopping an all-out attack from any of the currently nuclear-armed countries. I doubt that any of the countries that the NMD is intended to protect against could devote any more effort than is already being devoted to developing their nuclear missiles. If anything, an effective NMD would discourage further development of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.

commondata - 03:36pm Oct 14, 2002 EST (# 4868 of 4870)

gisterme 10/14/02 2:43pm

The concept of balance of power is predicated on mutual deterrence.

From http://www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue8/nmdrussia.html

To overwhelm an NMD shield, Russia must plan to launch massively and quickly in a crisis, either firing first or firing on warning from a deteriorating network of early warning satellites of an incoming missile strike.

Thus, in response to NMD, the alert rates of missile submarines at sea and road-mobile rockets on land might be increased. Russia's SS-18 force might increase its readiness to launch on warning even if it means breaching the 1994 Clinton-Yeltsin de-targeting pact. In striving to ensure that its missile forces in silos and on dockside alert can be launched before incoming U.S. missiles strike them, Russia might heighten the readiness of its remaining functional early warning radars and nuclear command posts.

Such increased emphasis upon accident-prone quick launch options would be virtually certain if the United States deploys a national missile defense in this decade. To deal with this contingency, Russia would likely deploy multiple warheads on its new land-based Topol M strategic missile and might even consider extreme responses including the fielding of space mines designed to disable the NMD's space-based sensor system in the event of U.S.-Russian hostilities.

Why not have a moratorium on the deployment of strategic missiles - defensive and offensive? Why not follow a defense policy that aims to ease tensions? Why not keep nuclear war thinkable?

gisterme 10/14/02 3:12pm

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the folks in some city, say London, that's spared a nuclear blast by a BMD system would probably be of a differing opinion.

I live in London, Gisterme, and my opinion doesn't differ. I will feel safer when you put your silly toys away and sign up to international, democratic justice.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense