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?

rshow55 - 11:49am Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10671 of 10673)

Not speaking of other things in Pentagon Seeking a Large Increase in Its Next Budget By JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/07/national/07PENT.html I was very glad to see this particular proposal.

" Officials say Mr. Rumsfeld will also push for accelerating a program to convert Trident submarines, which are now armed with nuclear- tipped missiles, so they can instead carry precision-guided cruise missiles with conventional warheads."

That conversion would be a terrific idea. Not only would it much reduce terrible nuclear risks (and moral problems with our posture) -- it would also convert an American military asset to a capability that, under current circumstances, we need. Need and have every right to have.

The world would be a sweeter, safer place if this conversion were already done.

I'd be glad if all the engineers now working on particular missile defense programs that, for particular traceable reasons, cannot possibly work were put on doing jobs like that -- possible jobs. I don't think there would be much staffing on existing MD programs left after the switch. If there wasn't enough for these engineers to do -- it would make great sense to assign them to other projects in the national interest.

Making the world self-sufficient in energy, forever, and getting control of global warming, would be two worthy subjects of concern. These are jobs well within the capability of the people now assigned to technically impossible tasks connected to "Star Wars."

rshow55 - 11:53am Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10672 of 10673)

Lchick , you're right that the Islamic states, if they made some adjustments, would have a lot to hope for. So much to work for!

But it seems to me and many other people that there are some problems -- tough ones, including some hang-ups about sex, and truth in the senses secular people consider essential, that are challenging, to both Islamic culture in general, and to various members of the Islamic clergy.

Without facing certain kinds of truth, and making certain kinds of adjustments, I'm afraid they may be stumped. Other societies, facing the needs of a new world, have had to face things and make adjustments, too.

I'm hopeful that the Islamic nations can and will make great progress, in terms that make sense to them -- on their own. But not so hopeful that I wouldn't welcome a circumstance where any and all Arab nations were very effectively deterred in ways that made it clear that their actions against other cultures carry a price.

gisterme - 12:13pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10673 of 10673)

rshowalt 1/6/02 3:32pm

"...Gisterme , I dont know the calculations of yours that you're referring to. Could you point them out? Thanks..."

Robert, do you remember the last scene from the film "Raiders of the Lost Arc"? When the government has placed the arc in a nondscript wooden crate and stored the crate it in an unbeliveably huge warehouse filled with many thousands of similar crates? That was a visual statement that said "not likely to be found again anytime soon". The corpus of this forum is quite like that warehouse, especially since the search function has been removed. You know that, I know that, and unfortunately, I just don't have time to go back to search for that stuff or the time to reproduce it right now.

So, your "forgetfulness" serves you well. You've even forgotten that you promised to answer and even asked for "a little more time". :-) Now after a lot more time...you can seem to answer without ever having answered. That's pretty slick, Robert. A joke I heard the other day comes to mind:

The one thing that's good about having Alzheimer's disease is that you can hide your own easter eggs...

Except you don't have Alzheimer's. If you did then maybe you'd have an excuse.

Most of what's been written here in the past is of little value for the future or even the present. Lot's of dull-grey unsweetened oatmeal, all pretty much the same, over and over. Not the sort of thing that inspires one to want to go back for a re-experience. I hope you and Dawn are not again conspiring to return to your old ritual of pumping that stuff out in such "deafening" volumes.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense