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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 06:49pm Jan 29, 2002 EST (#11115 of 11131)

Thank you, gisterme , those are helpful, pro-active responses. Consistent with getting to the right answer and also consistent with making good decisions, once facts are clear.

I'll be responding carefully.

Perhaps Paul Krugman is right when he writes today that we're at the " ending an era of laxity, in which nobody asked hard questions as long as everything looked O.K."

If, as Krugman (and others are writing in a similar vein) is right that " That era is now over ...." then we may be able to get good answers, and get them more quickly, than we have before.

The Great Divide by PAUL KRUGMAN

lchic - 01:08am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11116 of 11131)

Military like to 'run their own show' and 'lock out civillians' .. that there were 'no standards' in Nigeria is of little surprise.

The reality is that the nuclear armoury standards lock out rational civillians - kept in the dark, fed on bulldust.

When were civillians last invited to have a 'say' wrt MD?

gisterme - 03:09am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11117 of 11131)

lchic 1/30/02 1:08am

"...When were civillians last invited to have a 'say' wrt MD?..."

Ahem. I'll admit that you say almost nothing about missile defense here on the missile defense forum lchick, despite all your numerous posts. But I'm a civilian as are others who post here regularly...and we have a lot to say "wrt" the topic. What can you be thinking when you ask such a question?

gisterme - 03:18am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11118 of 11131)

rshow55 1/29/02 6:49pm

"...Thank you, gisterme , those are helpful, pro-active responses. Consistent with getting to the right answer and also consistent with making good decisions, once facts are clear..."

You're welcome, Robert! Glad to see you're finally coming to your senses. I've always believed you had some good sense, Robert, way down deep, somewhere... :-)

gisterme - 03:21am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11119 of 11131)

rshow55 1/29/02 8:44am

"...People are people, but they are capable of honor , and when it matters enough, can do well..."

Thank you, Robert, for saying something that 'most everybody can agree on.

gisterme - 03:25am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11120 of 11131)

rshow55 1/28/02 6:08am

"...I'd be for anything that actually strengthened the United States -- in ways Americans themselves, reasonably informed, would accept..."

Then you are for missile defense after all, Robert! Congratulations on finally seeing the light! :-)

gisterme - 03:29am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11121 of 11131)

rshow55 1/28/02 1:29pm

"...Is the United States of America retreating into a fortress mentality?..."

No.

"...Does that fortress mentality make technical sense?..."

Nope, that's why we aren't doing it.

"...Does it depend on a "technical dream" about missile defense that is simply false?..."

Only in your dreams, Robert.

gisterme - 03:39am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11122 of 11131)

rshow55 1/28/02 3:49pm

"...Money and engineering resources wasted on programs that cannot possibly work tactically should be redeployed to serve national needs..."

I couldn't agree with that statement more, Robert; but so far, you've failed to be convincing as to the identify any such waste of resources in your numerous postings on this thread. The current missile defense program certainly doesn't qualify.

lchic - 03:42am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11123 of 11131)

GI: Your 'answer' was 'less' than informative - re-read then try answering again. gisterme 1/30/02 3:09am

rshow55 - 08:36am Jan 30, 2002 EST (#11124 of 11131)

gisterme 1/30/02 3:39am

"I couldn't agree with that statement more, Robert; but so far, you've failed to be convincing as to the identify any such waste of resources ..."

"convincing" is a key word . . . . another key word is "true" .

Both can be evaluated with reference to a context.

But we're agreed that "money and engineering resources wasted on programs that cannot possibly work tactically should be redeployed to serve national needs."

That's progress.

So the right answer matters here. With these stakes, it isn't just interesting "what is convincing."

The stakes, for the nation, are high enough that it matters what is right.

When it matters enough, there are ways of getting facts straight that responsible people almost always agree on. Perhaps we can find such ways, related to the issues here.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense