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?

almarst-2001 - 06:35pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10293 of 10657)

gisterme 11/8/01 1:41pm

..."Dispelling misconceptions about Taliban, he said, they were actually the Afghan nation."...

The US Gov. and military seems to agree, considering the implications of their actions in Afganistan.

almarst-2001 - 06:38pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10294 of 10657)

"Hitler said he was the German nation too."

He wasn't. But the nation payed the price.

US Gov. isn't either, consequentially.

almarst-2001 - 06:42pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10295 of 10657)

"Pentagon considering restructure of Missile Defense..." - http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011107/n07140609_1.html

"such a restructuring could realign the fortunes of weapons contractors, which get billions of dollars from this work."

At least that is assured;)

almarst-2001 - 06:53pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10296 of 10657)

"British Airways chief Rod Eddington has called Hollywood film stars who refuse to fly because of the 11 September terror attacks "gutless cowards". - http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=472749&in_review_text_id=426901

That's an old known phenomen - the biggest cowards always try to mascarade themselve as fearless heroes. The other pne is the fact that many dreadful sadists like to proclaim their "humanity". And, frequently, the cowards are also the sadists.

almarst-2001 - 07:18pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10297 of 10657)

http://www.fair.org/ - FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN REPORTING:

Action Alert: Op-Ed Echo Chamber: Little space for dissent to the military line (11/2/01)

Action Alert: CNN Says Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be "Perverse" (11/1/01)

Media Beat: The World Series in a Time of Crisis (11/1/01)

Action Alert: FCC Moves to Lift Cross-Ownership Ban (10/26/01)

Media Advisory: Networks Accept Government "Guidance" (10/12/01)

Media Beat: Killing Them Softly: Starvation and Dollar Bills For Afghan Kids (10/12/01)

Media Beat: TV News: A Militarized Zone (10/8/01)

Activism Update: New York Times Responds to FAIR, Calls Criticism a Distortion (10/5/01)

gisterme - 07:30pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10298 of 10657)

almarst-2001 11/8/01 6:35pm

"...The US Gov. and military seems to agree, considering the implications of their actions in Afganistan..."

Naa. The US government and its military are the surgeon that will make sure the tumor is removed from Afghanistan. The majority of the fighting on the ground will be done by all those Afghans (northern alliance and others) that Mr Zaeef forgot about when he said that no Afgans protest or demonstrate against the Taliban. The principal implications of this US-Afghan action are that the Taliban, Al Qaida and others of thier ilk have short futures.

gisterme - 07:39pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10299 of 10657)

almarst-2001 11/8/01 6:38pm

"Hitler said he was the German nation too."

"He wasn't. But the nation payed the price..."

I'm glad you see my point. Same thing's happening in Afghanistan right now.

"...US Gov. isn't either, consequentially."

Nope it's the American people that are America...and the government that represents those people is doing what it's doing against the Taliban and Al Qaida because the people that government represents don't take kindly to having their innocent compatriots and foreign guests slaughtered.

gisterme - 07:40pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10300 of 10657)

What do any of your posts today have to do with Missile Defense, Almarst?

gisterme - 07:47pm Nov 8, 2001 EST (#10301 of 10657)

Why not comment about this if you disagree, almarst? This is about Missile Defense.

gisterme 11/3/01 5:17pm Questions from the forum header:

"Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful?

Technology has evolved considerably since the beginning of the SDI effort, some of the fancier things that we enjoy today as consumers because of that effort. While it has been greatly scaled back I don't think that SDI effort has ever been completely abandoned. What I mean by that is that sysems we're testing today are fruits of that ongoing effort.

"Can such an application of science be successful?"

It is being successful. At the time that the SDI was initiated nobody in the world could hope to destroy an incoming ICBM warhead witout using a nuclear weapon. The current test program is putting the finishing touches on technology that can do that.

"Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?"

ICBMs carrying nuclear bombs which travel trough space to reach their targets already seem like "militarization of space" to me. I find the arguement that ground-based interceptors that carry no nuclear weapons (like we're testing now) are somehow "militraiztion of space" a bit far fetched.

So far as space-based defeniseve measures go, such as some that have been proposed, well, what is the object of those efforts? Are they intended to somehow pollute space or are they intended to deny the use of space for the delivery of nuclear weapons here on earth?

Why would anybody have a problem with using space-based devices to protect the surface of the earth from space-transiting nuclear weapons, particularly if the defensive devices use no nuclear weapons? Nobody has offered a good reason so far.

(356 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense