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.

lchic - 02:22pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8412 of 8421)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

on earth

Peace on Earth .... and goodwill toward man

gisterme - 02:36pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8413 of 8421)

lchic - 02:09pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8409...)

"...Showalter implies that were analysis done, by teams, of the 'talk' prior to a war .... then the teams might identify common recurring problems ... and work them through..."

All the "team talk" in the world would not transform a creature like Saddam Hussein into one who negotiates in good faith. Didn't work with Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin and others either.

If problems can be solved by talking them through that's great. Unfortunately, I can't recall any instance where talking has convinced a bloody dictator to change his ways.

You and I are apalled when we see human suffereing. We'd be willing to make some personal sacrefices to help end it. We want to see truthfulness win out. We want people to be at liberty to exploit their own skills talents and gifts...to have a real chance to pursue their highest aspiratons.

Men like Saddam delight in human suffering. Men like that are willing to make personal sacrefices to assure its continuation. They only want to use the skills, talents and gifts of others to expand their own ability to opress. Men like that are threatened by folks who have their own aspirations and want to pursue their own dreams. Men like that are threatened by the truth. They will not negotiate in good faith even to save their own skins. They delight in deception.

More diametrically opposed poles of world view could hardly be imagined. They have never come to "middle ground" by negotiation so far as I know. That's because the "middle ground" would be way too far beneith the norms of civilization embraced by the vast majority of folks on the planet.

So, once again, talk is only useful when both sides negotiate in good faith.

wrcooper - 03:46pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8414 of 8421)

gisterme:

Have you Postol's criticisms of the Bush missile defense plan?

Furthermore, what is your rationale for supporting a multi-billion dollar program that can't succeed in stopping the general threat of terrorist or rogue nation attacks on the homeland of the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction (BCN weaponry).

Suppose that BMD worked brilliantly--a problematic supposition, but just suppose it. Then any group of nation state that possessed a BCN weapon would be forced to find alternative means of delivery. It would attempt to smuggle the weapon into the U.S. about, perhaps a container ship or on a small low-flying private aircraft in a remote region of the southern or northern border. It use any number of clandestine means to bring anthrax or nerve agent or even a backpack-sized nuclear weapon into the country.

Now ask yourself why would such an enemy bother building a technologically difficult and challenging and expensive missile system in the first place when simpler, low-tech, hard-to-detect methods of delivery are easily available?

The fact is that BMD is unworkable, not because of any technological hurdles (which do exist currently). I am sure that, given enough time and money, the decoy problems, and all the rest, could be solved. Probably. But what can't be solved by a missile shield is the threat of BCNs.

What is needed is closer monitering and intelligence work in the regions where the threat originates. We need better intelligence and interdiction of weapons technology. Closer international monitoring, cooperation and supervision.

Plus, most importantly, we need to work with the other developed nations in the civilized world to help eradicate the poverty and ignorance and political tyrrany that fosters anti-American radicalism. Terrorists aren't born; they're made. Unfortunately, the U.S. helps in part to make them by supporting dictators and turning a blind eye to the human suffering that keeps religious fundamentalism, etc., percolating in such societies.

wrcooper - 04:24pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8415 of 8421)

gisterme

Corrections:

1) Have you read Postol's criticisms...?

2) ...aboard a container ship....

3) I could use any number of clandestine means....

almarst2002 - 04:28pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8416 of 8421)

wrcooper,

I am totaly with you.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense