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.

manjumicha - 06:51pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6589 of 6596)

The NK's media rep in Tokyo was speculating about the NK H-bomb test being planned. It will be mounted on SV and shot up to the stratophere and detonated....all satellites will be advised to avoid the sky above NK during that time, otherwise there will be too much fryin going on in the space. Alternatively or simultaneously, a ICBM targeting a specific coordination in Atlantic (not Pacific) ocean launched from "unseen" mobile platform in NK (DOD scientists called it NK's unique evasion and deception technology, whatever that means) is an alternative being tossed around, according to those nut case commies in tokyo. I think it is really a put-up or shut-up time for NK nuts. If they don't respond in a serious way this time, their bluff would have been called and found lacking. i.e. paper tiger, bs artists, etc

PS: Can any PHDs help here? What is the "stealth" ICBM launchers, is there such a thing?

gisterme - 06:58pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6590 of 6596)

rshow55 12/11/02 5:23pm

"...I wonder if you can find a single serving officer in one of the non-US NATO countries who has much faith in it [missiile defense] - as a practical and tactical matter..."

You can be comical, Robert. Now let's see. Chances are that it would be a non-US NATO "serving officer" who would be contemplating launching a ballistic missile at the US or one of its NATO allies...RIGHT???

If I were that officer I'd want to be very sure the ballistic missile defense I was attacking really didn't work before I launched that missile, now wouldn't I? Of course I would. As a matter of fact, if I believed the BMD worked I'd have a pretty hard time launching that missile, even if ordered to do so, wouldn't I? Of course I would.

So I'd be amazed if every bit of training that officer gets isn't designed to convince him that the ballistic missile he may launch will work. He would launch the missile wheter there was a defense or not. That's why we need a ballistic missile defense and one that works. Bluffing is not an option. The only way to know that the BMD works is to test it. That's what's going on now. The record of five successes out of seven attempts aint bad so early in a large-scale test program. This is no bluff.

gisterme - 07:06pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6591 of 6596)

commondata 12/11/02 7:30pm

"...Yet successive administrations have been responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq during the last decade..."

Gawd, commondata. Don't start this crap again. Don't blame Iraqi suffereng caused by UNITED NATIONS sanctions that could have been ended at any time if Saddam had complied with United Nations resolutions on the United States. You are aiding and abetting Saddam's cruelty toward his people every time you do.

manjumicha - 07:12pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6592 of 6596)

Now, my question is...if a couple of SLVs tipped with nukes dentonate in the space above Pacific and a fewe cruise nuclear cruise missiles detonate themselves somewhere in the Japan sea, would those knock out any form of BMD system based both in the space and ocean....mind you they don't have to hit the satellites or ageis ships....just explosions a few miles away 9or evcen farther away) will do. I wonder how the military planners can counter a couple of nuclear silkworms exploding a mile away from the ageis fleet. Any ideas?

manjumicha - 07:25pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6593 of 6596)

The same nuts in Tokyo claim that NK has now more than 100 nukes, most of them H capable thanks to laser-fusion triggers indigenously developed by NK nuts...in a way, I can see why Bush administration is coming out with the nuclear preemptive strategy now....the world is fast approaching the point of no return from the proliferation point of view. No wonder Bush had to do something with that ship.....btw, it is reported (except in the US of course) that Bush notified SK of its plan fully one month before...and contrary to the US media report, the decision to release teh ship did not come about in one day...it was planned from the get-go...that's why the spanish were so pissed off for being used without being told of the real plan....btw, their deal with Rummy was no media report of the interdiction....and they got furious when the US DOD released the whole thing to CNN. Poor spain.

gisterme - 07:26pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6594 of 6596)

mazza9 12/13/02 5:42pm

"...Did you notice that the antonym of unclear is nuclear?"

Nope, but so it is. At least it's not "nuculer".

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense