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?

gisterme - 10:41pm Nov 12, 2001 EST (#10311 of 10657)

almarst-2001 11/12/01 4:22pm

"UN officials sounded an alarm about reports of looting, kidnappings, roving gunmen and summary executions in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif since its capture by opposition forces."

"...The familiar Bosnia-Kosovo scenario. At least this time no one claimed the "humanitarian" intentions..."

Right, almarst. Those are exactly the same kind of UN reports that lead to the NATO intervention in Bosnia-Kosovo. That's what was going on there before the NATO intervention. But all the reports out of Afghanistan aren't bad. One NYT report I read said that men were lining up at barber shops to have their Taliban mandated beards shaved, over half of the women had removed their burkhas and that music (banned by the Taliban) could be heard coming from shops and stores. Sounds like the "regular" Afghan folks are happy about the new arrangements.

We're straying from the missile defense focus again, almarst.

logician3 - 07:19am Nov 13, 2001 EST (#10312 of 10657)
A supposed god is being pushed down our throats.

Bush's proposed NMD program, like his total agenda, is frankly insane.

ledzeppelin - 12:33pm Nov 13, 2001 EST (#10313 of 10657)

The UN confirmed that depleted uranium was used in the bombs lobbed by the allied forces against Iraq... Indeed this contamination was one reason given by the WHO for the high death rate of 50,000 a year php of children furthermore the increased cases of the big C amongst these children.

The UN also confirmed its use; following a BBC TV exposure of this practice.

Uranium is easily and can safely be put into bombs without risking the bomb builder to a hazardous exposure level moreover the bomb makers have the protective wear to further protect them.

In the late 1950's the Vixen A, trials using samples of spent and depleted Uranium showed only to clearly its awful effects in the dispersion and ground contamination, moreover the inhalation ranges of even mal-detonated nuclear bombs.

In the Vixen B minor trials completed during 1960 to 63 required a radiological safety zone extended to 35 miles likening more to the "major" tests such as the Totem detonation of 1953. These trials in part intended to simulate bomb abuse and or adverse accident conditions expected aerosolisation down to respirable particle size.

With Beryllium being openly on sale along with both Uranium and Plutonium (Pu 239) pellets and rods its far easier to day for a rogue state and or terrorist to make a dirty bomb than it is to build a missile with warhead.

Even 200g of metal plutonium engulfed in a petrol fire will give rise to a inhalation hazard over a 3,500 yard radioactive deposition and inhalation hazard zone.

Indeed Pu 239 is on sale at $700,000 a Kg [enough for five substantive briefcase bombs] to day and you can even buy Tritium Gas capsules as well as beryllium and the briefcase is available anywhere...

Respectfully the above is but very brief, however that is why I would prefer to see the materials of mass destruction removed from circulation before one worries about missiles we already have the ability to blow up in mid flight. If we spend 10% of the previous MD budget on removing these materials from general sale then, thereafter look at the threat missiles may pose, but ignore the mad man; AND WE DO SO at our global villages peril.

armel7 - 02:16pm Nov 13, 2001 EST (#10314 of 10657)
Science/Health Forums Host

News flash -- Bush and Putin reach nuc agreement!

Stay tuned...

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

regeya - 06:02pm Nov 14, 2001 EST (#10315 of 10657)

The agreement to reduce will take us down to levels last seen in the mid 1950s - probably of the most important things that is happening for the future of this planet. And yet, it's not being treated as the number 1 story. The Taliban story is far more popular. Interesting.

11111pbh - 10:03pm Nov 14, 2001 EST (#10316 of 10657)

It is far past time to reduce nukes. The vast arsenal in Russia is now a serious threat to us, if Osama gets one. We don't need the nukes we have, the Cold War has been over for quite a while. Our president acts like a pathetic puppy, eager for approval around Putin. It's far past time to reduce nukes.

ledzeppelin - 12:04pm Nov 15, 2001 EST (#10317 of 10657)

regeya - (#10315 )

Respectfully your naivety in such an awful sordid little global village is a refreshing blast...

However as a terminal blast you need only a dozen or so inter continental ballistic missiles to wipe out the whole of North America.

Perhaps just perhaps; regeya, that is why no one is or was remotely interested in Bush letting Russia keep a couple of thousand or so ICBM’s…

You can only die once! Bush has let Putin keep more than enough to kill you and 360 million plus more in the US several hundred times over...

Thats not front page paper material it's toliet paper material. Do not blame the Taliban for keeping that off the front page!

almarst-2001 - 10:45pm Nov 15, 2001 EST (#10318 of 10657)

ledzeppelin 11/15/01 12:12pm

Unfortunatly, our hosts (Michael Scott Armel) view is that MD issues should be discussed in isolation. Which, incidently, is just the opposite of the Putin's position which I can completely understand.

Too bad, it seems the prevealing attitude of the American public in general. Hence the great surprise to the discovery that so many people and nations hate the American policies and even American public to the ultimate point of desperation leading to suicidal terrorist acts.

I still wonder what lesson will be learned?

armel7 - 02:12pm Nov 16, 2001 EST (#10319 of 10657)
Science/Health Forums Host

amharst -- Please. Each forum here has a focus subject. If you don't like it, please feel free not to participate. In the meanwhile, spare your sanctimonious analogies between forum guidelines and geopolitical lessons.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

(338 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense