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?

rshowalter - 07:50pm Oct 8, 2001 EST (#10187 of 10196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

RECENT MISSILE DEFENSE ARTICLES IN THE NYT

Forces on Highest Alert to Protect and Reassure By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT 2001/09/12 Warships and jet fighters were directed to protect major cities and national landmarks in case of another wave of suicide attacks.

Official Washington Hears the Echoes of Earlier Ones by ADAM CLYMER 2001/09/12 Many of the capital's elder statesmen heard an echo of the sudden attack on the country's most important naval base 60 years ago.

Nation Plunges Into Fight With Enemy Hard to Identify By R. W. APPLE Jr. 2001/09/12/national America's sense of security took a grievious blow.

Bush Aides Say Attacks Don't Recast Shield Debate By PATRICK E. TYLER 2001/09/12 A top Pentagon official said President Bush's missile defense shield could not prevent the kind of assaults that occurred on September 11.

Russian Aide Emphasizes Opposition to ABM Plan by PATRICK E. TYLER 2001/09/11 Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov expressed Moscow's resolve to oppose America's missile defense plans.

Europeans Pledge to Mount a Joint Battle on Terrorism 2001/09/11 European governments expressed solidarity with the U.S. as a democratic ally under attack.

Biden Gives a Tough Critique of Missile Shield 2001/09/11 Declaring a profound difference with President Bush, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., said today that plans for missile defense sacrifice national security for the sake of a "theological" belief — and that the effort to make such a system work would cost astronomical amounts of money.

Thousands Feared Dead as World Trade Center Is Toppled By JAMES BARRON 2001/09/11 In coordinated attacks, unknown terrorists crashed hijacked jetliners into both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

World Briefing 2001/09/11 ASIA/PACIFIC.

Europeans Pledge to Mount a Joint Battle on Terrorism 2001/09/12 European governments expressed solidarity with the U.S. as a democratic ally under attack.

rshowalter - 07:55pm Oct 8, 2001 EST (#10188 of 10196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The previous postings, from MD1077 rshowalter 10/8/01 7:40pm to here are set out on the basis described in MD10166 rshowalter 10/6/01 7:48pm

ledzeppelin - 05:19am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10189 of 10196)

If the proposed US Missile defence shield was to now go ahead; the 'so called' coalition against terrorism would break apart. So which is the US going to go for!

rshowalter - 08:08am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10190 of 10196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That's a great question. But is it on topic enough to discuss. It would be fruitful to discuss - - it would be interesting to discuss, one could argue that there are good practical reasons to discuss it, and I'd even be able to say that there are moral obligations to get right answers on such questions.

But at the click of a mouse, the discussion can be forbidden.

That's a fact of power.

Perhaps we might reframe, and involve some things that fit the explicit needs of Armel (as I understand them, but I'm sure I don't really, since he hasn't talke to me, at least so far.)

Suppose that the proposed US missile defense shield went ahead, but with checking morally forcing?

AND

Suppose that the coalition went ahead, too, but again, with checking on key things that the coalition has to deal with, including definitions, also morally forcing?

Could that work? Depends on what you mean by "work" - - but I can imagine better things coming out of such a compromise, than could come out of an "either or" which simply sets real needs aside.

rshowalter - 08:13am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10191 of 10196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Speaking of real needs. FEEDBACK is a real need. Armel said he was going to do an IP check, and, indirectly but clearly, asked me if I'd been using pseudonyms, here or elsewhere. Since the stakes, for me, are pretty high, it seems fair for me to ask:

Armel, did you do the IP check? Insofar as you could do that check, was I "lying" . . . and if I was "lying" -- could you say in what way, in enough context that other people could get some judgement of your judgement?

Is this a disproportionate, unfair question? Does it fit in? It seems to me that it does. Perhaps others disagree, and if they do, I'd be glad to discuss the matter here, or on the telephone -- I'm in the Madison Wisconsin phone book.

rshowalter - 08:14am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10192 of 10196)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Otherwise, I'll drop that particular question, for now.

Whether Armel answers or not, I wonder what ledzepplin thinks of my "both, but with checking" suggestion.

nomenclature - 09:13am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10193 of 10196)

ledzeppelin 10/9/01 5:19am Ryans belt (Heavy weight Champion) v Flat earthers? Creationism v Evolution? Going v Staying? Contradiction v Explanation? Lost v Found? Is the answer first v second? Or a third way?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense