"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 09:57 AM 8/24/01 -0700 Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>> however none of the tests that have been done so far have been very
>> successful - lots of misses and (as far as i know) every one of the
>> hits have involved a signal coming from the target. i'm pretty
>> comfortable with maintaining the focus on getting an
>> allowable-under-the-current-treaty system to consistently work before
>> attempting approaches that aren't allowed under the current treaty.
> Actually, this is an excellent argument (if true) for withdrawing from the
> ABM Treaty.
????
> Many people, especially missile defence skeptics, have suggested that the
> United States should concentrate on developing a boost-phase defence
> system.
uh... 'missile defence skeptics' argue that the whole thing is a
waste of resources and shouldn't be bothered with. someone arguing
for a 'boost-phase defence system' would not be a 'missile defence
skeptic'.
> The technological hurdles to boost-phase defences are much lower,
> since during the boost phase the missile is very hot from acceleration, and
> is much larger - having not yet disposed of its boosters. Additionally,
> boost-phase defences are unlikely to raise the ire of China and Russia
> nearly as much, as the use of boost-phase defences will be much more
> limited and transparent than other systems.
???? i don't see how the use of such a system would be any different
- both sorts would be used to try to destroy missiles. however a
'boost-phase' system could be perceived as attempting to destroy a
missile while it is still in (or over) the launching county's
airspace - i doubt that countries noted for paranoid leadership would
find comfort in that.
> Unfortunately, by definition, boost-phase defences require the use of
> mobile launchers - and the ABM Treaty prohibits all work and testing on
> defences using mobile launchers.
why would mobile launchers be required? i can see that they might be
more efficient, but not why they would be required. (hmmm..... since
a Scud is arguably a ballistic missile, and since a Patriot missile
supposedly shoots down Scud missiles - and is on a mobile launcher -
it would _seem_ that a violation has already occurred. the world is
full of irony.)
> Thus, if our attempts to develop an end-phase, fixed-base system are
> proving too difficult with current technology, the only sensible thing is
> to find ways to significantly alter the ABM Treaty. In contrast, your
> approach of only tackling the hard solutions and avoiding the easy ones
> hardly seems sensible.
it isn't 'my' approach, it is the approach that has been followed so
far. 'my' approach is to drop the whole thing as a bad idea. since
'my' approach is _not_ going to be followed, and since switching to
attempting a 'boost-phase' system involves upsetting some governments
who don't trust the U.S. government (and alienating some governments
who mostly trust the U.S. government), as well as facilitating a lot
of people getting upset about "the 'Evil Treaty Breaker", i would
lean towards taking the time to convince those various governments
and people that changes to the treaty are a good idea - and this
would include _listening_ to their concerns about changing the treaty
and what they have to say about what they think the changes should be
(once they get to the point where they can consider changing the
treaty).
>> convince the Russians and others that there are advantages for them
>> in negotiating a new treaty. (i expect that a long detailed
>> discussion of a new treaty would be productive even if it happens
>> that a 'missile defense shield' is never built.)
> This is exactly what the Bush Administration has spent the past six months
> doing.
i'm sure that is what they would say they have been doing that, and
i'm sure that they genuinely believe they have been doing that... but
in my view they haven't involved enough people who disagree with
their positions and goals for me to agree that they have been
attempting "a long detailed discussion of a new treaty" or attempting
to "convince the Russians and others that there are advantages for
them in negotiating a new treaty". (i'm not particularly surprised -
i can't think of any U.S. president who has been inclusive enough of
others' views to suit me.)
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
