New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(149 previous messages)
- 09:34am Jul 8, 2000 EST (#150
Ahh... Star Wars.
I remember all this from when I was a kid in the 1980s. Back
then, it was excimer lasers, orbiting particle beams, sub-launched
"pop up" x-ray lasers, rail guns, and an intricate array of
space-born mirrors. It really had us youngsters captivated with
images of giant ray gun satellites and space station command
centers. We figured that space travel and unlimited fusion power
were in our immediate future... our national destiny. We would all
become particle physicists or number theorists or quantum chemists
and live in a grand, utopian abstraction.
Instead, we found out that SDI was a scam intended to scare the
Russians with a soulless, technocratic, tall tale. We discovered
that Reagan wasn't a fearless leader ushering in a new era of peace
and freedom interspersed with paradoxical battles in space with the
Evil Empire. He was just an old actor suffering from senile
dementia- his script writers were the ones calling the shots.
These same people are still in charge, friends. American politics
have become as fake as professional wrestling, and anyone who
believes that we can now or ever implement a workable NMD scheme
needs to start taking their meds again. This is just the same old
crap the powers-that-be coughed up and regurgitated all over our
television to get us to start paying attention to them again.
Its just like all of those idiotic space launches they kept
televising or those meaningless, brushfire wars they would pester us
with. How about the false hope of life on Mars, remember that? None
of them resulted in anything significant. That's the idea, too...
they build up all of this anticipation and angst for the future only
to let it slowly burn out and leave nothing but cold, bitter ashes
Don't fall for it this time. These people control reality by
controlling our perception of reality. They introduce us to
their wild, crazy ideas simply to subvert our own wild, crazy ideas.
Then they sprout like weeds and infest our minds, pushing everything
aside. When that is finished, they kill their own notions and leave
nothing behind save a wet, sore, throbbing space inside of our minds
which then yearns to be filled with more garbage. That's how they
indoctrinate us, first with interesting things which turn out
to be lies; wearing down our inherent, self-protective tendency
towards disbelief and skepticism.
Just ignore them and hope that they go away.
- 09:41am Jul 8, 2000 EST (#151
evenbetta, I see in my neverending search for brevity on these
forums I was not too clear in my above posting. After we destroy
Country A, China decides..if it can't get us, it gets our friends
(without shields); Canada, South America, the EU. Not to leave
without a parting shot, the EU launches against China and Russia
(why not..they never liked Russia anyway). Russia, not to be
outdone, launches everything they have at everyone. Let's guess how
long we'll survive behind our shields during the ensuing nuclear
- 10:03am Jul 8, 2000 EST (#152
If all the interdiction efforts of the 'war on drugs' cannot
prevent the arrival in our cities of tons of illegal drugs, why
should 'rogue' states, who are presumably the sponsers of terrorism,
hesitate to attempt taking out chunks of our cities with 'suitcase'
deliveries of nuclear devices? What are the chances that such
attacks might be planned by 'non-rogue' states who are just darned
nervous about the new 'USA uberallus' mentality prevalent in our
nation? Where is that coming from? Why is our foreign policy so
short on making friends of other nations? When did we start losing
the respect and trust of the world? Isn't diplomacy supposed to
accomplish the goals our State Department claims, without taking
sides and alienating hundreds of millions of people around the
world?Americans cannot expect to coast on the reputation we gained
in two world wars, as a generous, peace loving, sensible society if
our generals and diplomats and politicians are busy establishing the
most threatening stance they can devise.
- 10:09am Jul 8, 2000 EST (#153
I'm from Greece where - as you say - we have problem with
terrorism... Have you the same problem? I think the answer is YES.
So, first of all try to take the guns from the students' hands. when
you will have finished with this you can work on the international
- 01:33pm Jul 8, 2000 EST (#154
A ghost of the past
That missile test failure, yesterday, was due to a faulty booster
separation. That did not prove the science wrong, or the project as
bad. (The failing separation of that booster, old technology, is
equivalent to a flat tire on an automobile, which does not negate
the engineering or design of the car itself.) In addition, even if
the system never worked at all, the advances in major science would
more than offset the cost of the project; because, in the past,
every major scientific endeavor has more than paid for itself in
spin-offs. Opposition to this needed system will be political, not
- 02:41pm Jul 8, 2000 EST (#155
Dwighyt D. Eisenhower warned the nation about the ever increasing
power of the military-industrial complex. They're at it again, boys,
ready to spend yet more billions of dollars on their stupid "Star
Wars" scheme. The money can be much better used for domestic
priorities, like health care, transportation, education, water, etc.
We should not be making the fat cat military and industrial
typhoons even richer than they are, no matter how much they
contribute to Slick Willie's war chest.
(11703 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science