Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (14190)	12/19/2001 11:08:19 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem is not just mastering the technical ability to shoot down a warhead...it's how to do so reliably, the first time out, without warning, amid lots of decoys. I'd say the odds of that are pretty low. But still, if we throw enough money, time, and energy at the problem, we're likely to get at least something that might be useful in some circumstances. So the question is really an insurance one: how much is it worth to us to take out a policy that would provide some protection from one relatively unlikely class of threat? If it was cheap and unproblematic, the answer would probably be, "sure, why not?" But if (as is actually the case) the financial cost will be somewhere in the 12 figure range, if success is not guaranteed, and if it carries political and diplomatic costs as well, then the calculus looks different. The way to look at this is as a pragmatic question of defense policy, not through ideology, or arms control theology, or politics, or what have you. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry gave what I thought was a sensible treatment of the issue in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs; it's also a chapter in the How Did This Happen? book. tb@pragmatist.com PS please, no more bubble charts. It reminds me of the Little Prince; I don't see a hat, but rather my portfolio swallowed by a python....

To: TimF who wrote (14190)	12/19/2001 11:27:44 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Guys, A limited missile defense system could be deployed within 2 years and be effective. Current testing shows targeting technology is on track. The critics all point out the difficulty of making direct hits at the speeds involved. But only conventional or kinetic payloads require direct hits. If we wanted to knock out an inbound ICBM, an ABM armed with a neutron warhead with a 1-2 kilometer kill ratio would be close to 100% effective with todays telemetry (no onboard GPS needed). Neutron weapons would have no residual radiation and blast effects would not reach the earths surface. If a small number of ICBM's are inbound who cares about restraint? Any inbound missile would be assumed to be a weapon of mass destruction and should overide any squeemishness over our use of a nuclear response. Could it be effective against an all out soviet style attack? Probably not. If thousand of weapons are launched, even a 99.999% effective system would still let a few dozen through. But there is no current enemy capable of that kind of launch, so there is no need for anything more than a limited system. John