----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:36 PM Subject: Re: Missile Defense in a New Strategic Environment
> Dan: > > This article was certainly not meant to be the "last word" regarding all > points of the argument. > > However, some list members rather voiciferously predicted that withdrawing > from the ABM Treaty would produce an arms race. Well, I certainly didn't say that. Russia is too poor. But, Russia'a agreement doesn't come without a price. My guess is that the price for the agreement here and there is a blind eye to any Russian human rights abuses. > Additionally, he also > did address the point you raised earlier about the appropriate technology > to use with missile defence, and pointed out that certain sea-based systems > are only able to be tested now with the ABM Treaty no longer in effect. Well, a bit of geography that I considered at the time shows that there are land based launch sites that can hit the US just fine without getting near sea based ABM systems. The idea of a defense system is not to build one that only works if the enemy is dumb enough to do exactly what you've defended against. > As for your worries about containers, anti-radar systems won't defeat a > bomb in a container either, but that doesn't mean that we don't develop > anti-radar systems. The nature of war is that you try and counter all of > your opponent's weapons, not just one of them. Building a Margenol (sp) line is not a defense. We were told in 1970 that we could then develop an ABM system. We couldn't with the technology of the time. We were told in 1981 that we could; we couldn't. We are told again that we can; and are not given any real indication that this time is different from the others. The ABM systems do not pass the BS test I use for new technology. The test isn't foolproof, but I'd be very curious to see why they don't do the things that successful and innovative designers tend to do with hard problems. Instead they do the thing that usually leads to failure: compress the schedule and backload the high risk portion of the test. I proposed a very realistic suggestion for a good test. I know it won't be implemented, because success is valued more than doing things so they will really work. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
