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 - 08:04pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8429 of 8449)

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

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.7aaNaH1l11h.260164@.f28e622/9940

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

I've read some in the past but nothing recent. Although I respect Mr. Postol for his position as a MIT prof and as a physicist, nothing I've read of his is much more than opinion. If his were the opinion of scientists who were actually working on the BMD project and had more information than the rest of us I'd probably give his opinions more weight.

Having a pretty extensive technical background myself, I agree with you that even if there are some technical difficulties remaining to be resolved WRT decoy discrimination, they are soluble. However, the current BMD system is a system in test and data needed to solve those problems (if they haven't been solved already) in "real world" conditions is being gathered via the test program. That's what a test program is for.

"...Now ask yourself why would such an enemy bother building a technologically difficult and challenging and expensive missile system in the first place..."

That's a question I've answered a number of times before. The answer is that a stand of ICBMs is the "big hammer" that prevailed as the designator of a "superpower" in public opinion while Saddam, Kim Jong Il and their ilk were growing up. Posession of ICBMs is what set them apart from their masters. Pointing to a nuclear-armed ICBM capability is a powerful way to tell the public "we have arrived". Also, in the past, ballistic missiles have been a method of potential attack against which there has been no defense. I believe that's why so much effort is and has been expended in NK, Iraq, Iran and even Pakistan to build long-range ballistic missiles. Like you, those folks may also be convinced that a BMD can't work. If they thought it could they wouldn't be trying so hard, using so many resources to develop ballistic missiles.

"...when simpler, low-tech, hard-to-detect methods of delivery are easily available?..."

Defending against that threat is a different multi-billion dollar effort. I would hope that that's what the enire homeland defense agency is about. If it isn't then we may be screwed.

I thought it was ironic that Hillary Clinton (of all people) should be lambasting efforts to date at improving homeland defense. After all, it was her husband that was asleep at the switch for eight years while Saddam, Kim Jong Il and Al Qaeda gathered the strength that is causing all this trouble now. It was her party that was largely responsible for the US bureaucracy becoming the bloated entity that it now is. She is actually complaining that the wheels of that bureaucracy are slow-moving. Wow.

Yes, I agree that the low-tech alternatives to a ballistic missile attack are real, no less real than the developing threat of a missile attack itself. WRT the BMD system, that's the kind of thing you can't wait on because once a madman gets some ballistic missile capability there won't be an opportunity for a long development program. The threat of missile attack would make that impossible.

In my view it is prudent to defend against both smuggled WMD and ballistic missile threats so long as they exist.

gisterme - 08:13pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8430 of 8449)

rshow55 - - 05:49pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8426...)

"...I've suggested in MD6808 rshowalter 7/9/01 4:43pm that gisterme represents this administration, and could not write as extensively as gisterme does, without the knowledge and backing of the very highest levels of the Bush administration, including:

National Security Advisor Condaleezza Rice,

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage,

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfkowitz,

Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and the people they report to have to..."

There you go again with that fatally flawed logic of yours, Robert. Since you write more extensively than I do, does that mean that you couldn't do it "without the knowledge and more extensive backing of the very highest levels of the Bush administration?"

Or do you just apply a double standard...

gisterme - 08:17pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8431 of 8449)

sambro55 - - 06:24pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8428...)

"...What does gisterme say about it?"

What gisterme says about it, sambro, is that I have nothing to do with the US government other than being a tax payer and voter. I'm not an employee, elected official, consultant or in any other way connected to any government.

gisterme - 08:22pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8432 of 8449)

Will,

Are you going to meet with Robert?

I'm interested in hearing your "take".

Robert,

Are you going to meet with Will?

I'm interested in hearing your "take" too.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense