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.

almarst2002 - 03:14pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6800 of 6822)

Robert,

You may like it: Banishing Armageddon - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1216-04.htm

almarst2002 - 03:17pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6801 of 6822)

"...what the militarization of a society costs, economically and socially and in terms of civil liberties, the propaganda of violence as both heroism and efficient solution. It means probing the official versions to reveal how and why we are being driven toward aggression. To be "antiwar" is to be for public debate and knowledge, the foundations of democratic polity. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1214-02.htm

commondata - 03:20pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6802 of 6822)

This roll-out is absolutely nothing to do with missile defense is it? This is about being able to shoot anything out of the sky, anywhere at anytime. This is an offensive weapon.

wrcooper - 03:40pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6803 of 6822)

From the report of today's press conference:

Asked at a Pentagon press conference how he could be confident in fielding a system considering some recent failures in testing, Rumsfeld said, "most things don't just arrive fully developed."

"The way to think about the missile defense program is that ... it will evolve over time."

Rumsfeld used as an example the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, the spy plane that became a big asset in the war in Afghanistan although it was still in testing. The Predator allowed troops to gather intelligence without endangering pilots and ones fitted with missiles allowed the CIA to carry out attacks without endangering their agents.

Bush is committing the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars on <u<deploying a system that has not proven itself reliable. This makes no sense. They're gambling that breakthroughs will be made that qualify it for field readiness.

Is this the right way to proceed?

The chances that this system will offer any proctection at all are at present slim. Worse than that, however, is that it's placing our precious eggs in the wrong basket.

The threat isn't from ICBMs. It's from NBCs smuggled into the country aboard container ships or in the bellies of 747s or on the backs of suicide bombers who sneak across our borders under the cover of darkness.

As David Sirota, spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee said, "If George Bush thinks we are so flush with cash that we can afford billions to deploy a technology that might not even work, then why has he repeatedly rejected funding for basic security like border patrol, Coast Guard and immigration services that we know is desperately needed to prevent another September 11th?"

We're going to spend billions to fight the lowest probability event. There's much more likelihood that a terrorist will smuggle a small-yield bomb into the country in a backpack than that a rogue nation or Al-Qaida will launch a missile at us.

This plan is a costly mistake. Or else a deliberate sop to the defense contractors.

commondata - 03:48pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6804 of 6822)

The threat isn't from ICBMs.

And they know it isn't.

We're going to spend billions to fight the lowest probability event.

You're going to spend billions on complete military control over the entire planet.

This plan is a costly mistake.

Or in the warped minds of the generals - brilliant.

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense