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 - 08:05am Feb 2, 2002 EST (#11183 of 11196)

Sometimes "the system" cleans up itself, to some degree.

Eight Marine Officers Are Charged in Osprey False-Records Case by CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/national/18OSPR.html

(But, without pressure, it is too much to hope for, this time. But with pressure -- from the public, from the press, from responsible people all over the world - - a lot might sort out.)

We need to deal with the threats from weapons of mass destruction (including our own) in ways that make sense, and can work.

If we cleaned up our own messes, as a nation -- we could.

lchic - 08:17am Feb 2, 2002 EST (#11184 of 11196)

Folks here obviously under influence of a 'culture' that's not for 'common good'. How to bring about a cultural change that's visionary and looks to the future for good - it's a challenge.

rshow55 - 08:34am Feb 2, 2002 EST (#11185 of 11196)

It sure is a challenge. But not an impossible one.

MD7909 rshowalter 8/19/01 1:50pm contains links I find interesting at this stage in the discourse, and includes this:

Once some key technical facts , which are fundamentally non-political, and all showable on the basis of the open literature -- get clarified, so that people actually understand them ..... some political, diplomatic, and military patterns are going to have to be reshaped in useful ways.

MD7913 rshowalter 8/19/01 2:22pm

MD7914 rshowalter 8/19/01 3:30pm illustrates some problems, but also strengths we can build on, and includes this:

" The Osprey records falsification case illustrates some of the reasons why things can go wrong, and stay wrong, in the technical decision making of the military and military contractors. I made some observations on the point, somewhat critical of a senior Marine, at a time when others were no doubt saying similar things. (many links)

"The submarine surfacing collision story of the same time involved some similar problems. MD987 rshowalter 3/14/01 8:54am

"In the Osprey records falsification case, The United States Marine Corps has responded in what appears to be an exemplary fashion to such challenges. People are being held responsible, and a broad, careful investigation is being done.

" Similar concerns ought to apply in missile defense, where there are many severe technical flaws to the program, if the program is considered to be something that is to have military use.

"If the Marine Corps can stand up to unpleasant circumstances in the Osprey case, as it seems to be doing, key technical problems in the missile defense program may be adressable, too.

" The key issue involved, in terms of public policy, is not punishment, though punishment can be important.

"The key issue is establishing the truth, on technical matters that are matters of life, death, and that involve enormous resources.

In our war with terror, the truth becomes more important rather than less. We have strictly military jobs to do to radically reduce if not eliminate islamic terror. But we must also adress systems of ideas, based on lies, and get people, large numbers of people, to come to see some key facts, some basic truths. That's a hard thing for us to ask the Islamic world to do, but we must ask -- and get -- adjustments to facts that can make a safer, more prosperous, and more decent world possible.

We can only do this effectively if we're willing to clean up some of our own messes, as well.

We can do so. We must.

atrain4462 - 08:38am Feb 2, 2002 EST (#11186 of 11196)

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

lchic - 08:42am Feb 2, 2002 EST (#11187 of 11196)

I don't think they'd 'thought' it out to that extent - (above).

Loss of Face is a factor that limits progress in some cultures ... there nepotism, favouritism, and 'tribalism' prevail over regular business methodologies.

rshow55 - 08:44am Feb 2, 2002 EST (#11188 of 11196)

This is happening in public -- and because of the Enron matter, and connections between Enron and politics, these issues cannot be concealed.

Therefore, the United States loses face if it doesn't fix these problems.

I think the Marine Corps behavior, in times of awkwardness, sometimes offers a good example, in the Osprey matter and some others. When military function really matters - - "keeping our honor clean" -- is a very practical matter!

reader374 - 03:10pm Feb 2, 2002 EST (#11189 of 11196)

enron will rebound with full vigour

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense