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 - 11:09am Feb 6, 2002 EST (#11297 of 11304)

Because I've had a credentialling problem, that you can look at from several points of view in MD10085 rshow55 1/17/02 3:28pm , I've been slow to respond to some challenges - and I'm being careful for some other reasons, as well. A major reason for care is that I'm trying to act in the national interest. MD7390 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:20pm

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.

In MD11288 gisterme says that there is no umpiring required, since we can refer to "published refereces" as the "ultimate umpires." That isn't true, and I believe gisterme has enough connection to academics and business to know it. The argument would have been more fairly applied to the "published references" on Enron , six or eight months ago, when the facts were supposed to be clearly available - - here - the shroud of classification on many, many key numbers makes the case harder -- it the case is considered at all - rather than dismissed, by taking what the contractors and military officers say on faith.

There is little to justify that faith in this case. The missile defense program may be more trustworthy, on the whole, than Enron , but in terms of what I know, and have seen on this board from gisterme and Mazza , that's far from clear.

One of the reasons I'm taking my time is that I'm pondering the question -- could gisterme and Mazza be acting in good faith? Emotionally, a part of me wants not to believe it. Intellectually, I can't yet imagine a coherent set of extenuating circumstances. But all the same, I know that I can be wrong.

A question arises - is there any body of facts that would make gisterme say, or Mazza say - -

" Yes, there are basic problems here -- this particular missile defense program should not be supported. After all, there are other priorities."

Since I have reason to doubt that there are such circumstances, I feel that umpires - competent ones, able to judge key technical issues, along the lines I've suggested, make sense.

rshow55 - 11:16am Feb 6, 2002 EST (#11298 of 11304)

I'm slogging through the last few days postings -- especially those of Mazza and gisterme - but feel that most emphasis should be put on technical issues.

Among them, the fact that the "adaptive optics" of ABL can't possibly work -- because it has nothing to adapt to remotely good enough to make it function as a weapon. There is no adaptive feedback loop worthy of the name for the purpose the weapon is supposed to serve.

(There are other fatal problems, too. From my perspective, looking at numbers that can reasonably be hoped for on the basis of open literature results -- ABL is a technical outrage at a number of technical levels -- unless the engineers have been instructed to execute a hoax. In which case the outrage would be of another kind. )

The ABL is clearly a mistake -- even without considering reflective countermeasures, which are also obvious, and very easy.

Is it also a crime? Perhaps not. But the analogies between the missile defense program, and the "culture of deception" in Enron , concern me - and I think they ought to concern others.

Passionate pleas for "trust" -- in the sense of blind, submissive faith - - aren't encouraging.

The national interest requires that good decisions be made - and that depends on technically correct answers.

lchic - 11:45am Feb 6, 2002 EST (#11299 of 11304)

analogies between the missile defense program, and the "culture of deception" in Enron , concern me - and I think they ought to concern others

rshow55 - 11:57am Feb 6, 2002 EST (#11300 of 11304)

All concerned should also consider the differences - - because military contracting, in the Cold War, involved, as a matter of routine, patterns that would be illegal, in terms of securities law, and other things. That was understandable. Some are clearly shown in a very impressive study

. Defense Restructuring and the Future of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base

. A Report of the CSIS Senior Policy Panel on The U.S. Defense Industrial Base

The patterns described, though they have their uses, can, left to themselves, produce a military-industrial complex that grows like a cancer, and that can be, too often, immune to national needs.

But the situation is different from Enron in the militaries case -- in some ways.

But the potential for corruption is there -- and in missile defense, things have been out of reasonable technical control for a long time.

The Cold War ought to be over - - - not perpetuated, against the interest of the vast majority of United States citizens, and the rest of the world.

Extenuation is one thing. And there are extenuating circumstances here. But there's a need for correction, as well.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense