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 - 08:04pm Jan 31, 2002 EST (#11158 of 11167)

Because I've had a credentialling problem, that you can look at from several points of view in MD11044 rshow55 1/25/02 2:32pm , I've been slow to respond to some challenges - and slow to contact supportive people and organizations. Slow to do some things that gisterme has suggested I do -- such as build a reflective decal, to show people. With data. That job looks increasingly possible.

Another thing that looks increasingly possible is organization of an "engineering court" where some things can be taken to closure, in ways that could work, in the real political context we're in.

There are ways to get facts straight, and I'm not asking anyone to "take my word for it." MD11045 rshow55 1/25/02 2:34pm . Maybe, with accounting issues a more public concern than they've been, and the idea that some "old laxities" need to be corrected, some other people may consider getting facts established, too. MD11046 rshow55 1/25/02 2:50pm

Closure, on this thread, without umpiring, is obviously impossible. Someone can always do another posting. With possibilities of intentional and unintentional misstatements, as well. But it may be possible in other ways to get to closure - - perhaps including some suggested and discussed here.

Some progress has been made, I believe, since September 25, 2000 - - maybe some progress has been made today.

rshow55 - 08:04pm Jan 31, 2002 EST (#11159 of 11167)

Out.

lchic - 08:25pm Jan 31, 2002 EST (#11160 of 11167)

The dove of peace would send clones of Superman, powered by Kryptonite, to stride all those missiles gisterme 1/31/02 7:33pm , deflecting them to the deep never-never of Space.

gisterme - 12:16am Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11161 of 11167)

lchic 1/31/02 8:25pm

"...deflecting them to the deep never-never of Space."

Yeah, but wouldn't they look magnificent during the process! :-)

gisterme - 01:01am Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11162 of 11167)

rshow55 1/31/02 7:18pm

"...What we need, in my view (and this is a technical view) is not trust, which is unstable, but careful distrust, with some respected and enforced rules..."

Distrust? Distrutst between ourselves and who? Our friends? I can harldy imagine a quicker way to lose friends. Why is trust unstable among friends? You can't possibly mean that. The idea of planned distrust among friends is as repulsive to me as planned obselescense by consumer product manufacturers.

Perhaps you mean we should distrust our enemies? Well guess what, Robert, we already do. Wouldn't you agree? It seems that your prescription for "what we need" is already quite filled from our point of view.

I just wish our enemies had a bit more "distrust" of us. Because our national policies are the way they are, our enemies have far more trust in us to act in predicable ways, guided by the rule of law, than we could ever have in them. They are pretty much lawless except for the law of the gun.

But I don't think that's quite what you meant either. I think you're still trying to live out some sort of Cold War fantasy where two non-communicating monolithic superpowers are waiting to see who will blink first. Thank God, those days are behind us, Robert. If you don't think we have enough distrust of the Iraqi government, Al Qaida, the North Korean government or any of the other current problem folks in the world, perhaps you should point out some ways that we can distrst them more! I'd be interested to see that list.

In my view, the fundamental basis for the need of missile defense is our healthy distrust of our present enemies taken in the context of their demonstrated lust for ballistic missiles and WMD. That our distrust in them is well founded was amply proven last September 11. Believe me, Robert, such as those don't need ballistic missles and WMD for the purpose of deterrent or just because they love their neighbors!

So what you're saying about needing more distrust makes no sense at all to me. By the way, what is so technical about your view? Care to clarify?

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense