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 - 01:41pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10806 of 10820)

Perhaps a bad choice of words. In some ways - - certainly so.

Contractors and officers working on missile defense are ordinarily competent, conscientious people, in the main - some outstandingly good, some less than outstanding . . as one would expect.

There have been a series of decisions and compromises, over a long time, many or most well intentioned, and reasonable when they were made - - that I believe have involved mistakes. Many involving a mistake, a misunderstanding about the interface between the concrete and the abstract in modelling -- that is 350 years old.

Robert Bork speaks of "the real world of compromises, half measures, and self seeking" that can "appear corrupt."

Sometimes, muddles can need fixing.

rshow55 - 01:44pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10807 of 10820)

I think the fixing could be done in ways that were strongly in the interest of almost everybody concerned. Graceful. Sensible. In ways that make it possible for us to be safer, and make it possible for us to take advantage of real opportunities to solve the real problems that we have.

The military-industrial complex, in my view, is a precious national resource. But it should be deployed doing possible things -- that can yeild security and other benefits for the nation, and human culture in general.

rshow55 - 01:57pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10808 of 10820)

Don't want to be too sentimental, but I believe that these poems express some key points - well known, in practice, to some deal-making businessmen and lawyers (active Republicans) of my acquaintance. We need solutions that are true, and work for all concerned. Based on ideas that can "propagate" through the culture - rather than fizzle from too many "Chain Breakers."

We need solutions that are, in a technical sense I try to explain in two poems "redemptive and detonative."

Secular Redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/619

Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

- -

Mushy idealism? I think not. I think that a lot of good redemptive and detonative solutions happen in the United States of America, and all over the world, every day. They are the solutions, I think, that work best.

lchic - 03:54pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10809 of 10820)

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/slug.jpg

lchic - 03:56pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10810 of 10820)

http://www.csis.org/polmil/dibreport.html

guy_catelli - 07:32pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10811 of 10820)
the trick of Mensa

EMERGENCY CALL BOX: http://www.r-s-r.org/ikonboard/images/call_box-1bc60.jpg

gisterme - 08:03pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10812 of 10820)

rshow55 1/15/02 6:37am

"...Now, in part, I believe, because of this thread, and hard work of gisterme , almarst and associated staffed organizations, I think the risks less..."

Bwaa ha ha ha ha ho hum. Are you back to that again, Robert? No need for a staffed organization on my part, Robert. "Staffs" tend to be disorganized, confused and hard-pressed to focus clearly on anything. There's no "staff" involved with any of my posts, Robert, that's why they don't reflect any of those problems. :-) I think you're being carried away by your delusions of grandure again...however if anybody in decision-making positions has followed this thread, they seem to be taking my position much more than yours. I rather think that they're just applying common sense in the same way that I try to. I'm glad that makes you feel safer, Robert. :-)

"...Still, some things go slowly, because gisterme , mazza , and others try to bury things -- act as if they need not be answered, and therefore force me to repeat myself..."

Repeated nonsense does not make points, no matter how many times you repeat it, Robert. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that I or anybody else is "burying" it.

"...For example, the key issue of reflective coatings has been raised, again and again, since MD6765 rshowalter 7/8/01 3:16pm..."

Again and again by you, Robert, with the referenced post being just one example. Your original post referenced there is a perfect example of your typical creation of nonsense through mis-applicaion.

I still stand by the only answer I gave about your reflectivity mis-applicaion approach: gisterme 11/9/01 4:36am

"...Only now are we getting to half straight answers from mazza and gisterme..."

You've always received completely straight answers from me, Robert. I cite the reference above as an example.

"...Along with a lot of evasion..."

Yes, and all the evasion is by you.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense