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?

possumdag - 11:54pm Oct 1, 2001 EST (#10045 of 10060)
Possumdag@excite.com

the UK's premier scientific organisation, the Royal Society, had been asked to set up the scientific inquiry committee. "Committees have previously been appointed on a purely ad hoc basis. No effort was made to identify the best people," Fergson-Smith said. (re Checking)

rshowalter - 12:06pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10046 of 10060)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

This thread has been about missile defense, and interconnections to missile defense that, in my view, really are essential to understanding the issues involved, and finding better solutions.

The thread contains a great deal about missile defense, and the related questions of space weapons. In MD10032 rshowalter 10/1/01 11:16am I believe that I showed, once again, that lasar weapons systems are fatally flawed - - and with them, much else about the administration's missile defense program. I asked:

" can you ( kangdawai ) , or gisterme , or anyone else, point to responses, cited in MD9896 rshowalter 9/29/01 7:44am that are not specific enough to check and tell me why they are not?

I'm awaiting an answer. The question is central to the logic of "missile defense" as it is being proposed. More than lasar weapons are involved, because patterns of evasion, and sometimes stunning technical irresponsibilitiy on show in the lasar weapons programs also exist widely elsewhere in the "missile defense" programs.

And elsewhere, too, especially in areas, long separated from the usual American traditions of openness, that involve nuclear weapons. For a policy that I wish was unamerican, that surely is very different from normal American usages, see ARMED TO EXCESS by Bob Kerrey http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/opinion/02KERR.html

rshowalter - 12:16pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10047 of 10060)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

From Kerrey's piece:

"Part of the reason that Congress has not been pressing for steep reductions is that members of Congress have never seen the actual missile targeting plans developed by the military in response to presidential directives. For twelve years in the Senate — eight of which I served on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence — I tried without success to get this briefing. In fact, I was unable to find a single member of the Senate who had been briefed. Mr. Bush should order his military commanders to brief members of Congress on the targeting plans.

" . . . . A map of Russia that contained thousands of red circles each indicating a nuclear detonation would convincingly show the extent of the excess nuclear capability we have.

The progam is so thoroughly hidden because it conflicts so strongly with ordinary, sane, proportionate human responses - and the people in charge of it know that.

armel7 - 10:38pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10048 of 10060)
Science/Health Forums Host

kangdawei -- Please read the header of the forum to which I referred you. It is live-moderated and therefore is read-only when the moderator goes home.

Meanwhile, I deleted many posts here. This forum is about the science and technology of missile defense.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

possumdag - 11:16pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10049 of 10060)
Possumdag@excite.com

thread-header: Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

armel7 - 11:35pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10050 of 10060)
Science/Health Forums Host

possumdag -- Point noted. That old header was not written by myself. This new one is.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

possumdag - 12:13am Oct 3, 2001 EST (#10051 of 10060)
Possumdag@excite.com

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts.

rshowalter - 07:26am Oct 3, 2001 EST (#10052 of 10060)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Morning. Woke up worried, but full of plans. There were things I was thinking might be worked out - but I was stumped in spots, and then I checked here . . and felt much better. I'm unstumped, on some old things - - because some ideas can just be abandoned, at least for now. Some things I wasn't looking forward to doing, was putting off, can just be laid aside, at least for now.

I've got other things to think about - - - and will be back in a while. May even take a nap first.

Back reasonably soon. Want to get some thoughts adjusted, and take just a little time to adjust. I like Armel's new heading a lot.

possumdag - 09:00am Oct 3, 2001 EST (#10053 of 10060)
Possumdag@excite.com

In your own time Sir. What frameworks for thinking might this board follow?

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense