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.

(11394 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:09pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11395 of 11402)

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt
Image: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.gif
Essay: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
also listed, with comments, in rshowalter 9/24/01 11:05am

Berle's Laws of Power from Power by Adolf A. Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y.
set out in
MD948 rshowalter 3/12/01 10:02am ... MD1066 rshowalter 3/16/01 5:36am

rshow55 - 12:11pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11396 of 11402)

Human constraints can make things more complicated, but some assumptions that people can usually assume can make things simpler --- if the assumptions are true. If all concerned can assume that people believe what they say - - it is immensely simplifying -- and on the basis of that assumption, facts can often come into a right focus quickly.

One interesting thing about this thread, I believe, is that the discourse of gisterme and Mazza is so often misleading, as to facts, or distracting -- leading away from convergence. Sometimes, the misleading statements are factually true, but with key points deleted.

For example, in MD11379 gisterme 2/8/02 8:05pm ... gisterme quotes me

"...The other issue is that reflection is not the same at all wavelengths. But the COIL laser is a specific wavelength - - and it is the laser source on ABL..."

and gisterme comments:

"Yep. But we've already established that even with only 2% reflectivity at the COIL's wavelength, at 1000 km range, through the thin upper atmosphere, a focused beam could more than achieve the 1 kW/cm^2 delivered power we've speculated would be enough to get the job done. That's if the missile is covered with a reflective material that reflects at just the right wavelength."

Technically that's true -- with a beam focus that the dialog has already ruled out, and that gisterme has stopped arguing for.

In this case, and many others, one can ask does gisterme believe it?

But few ask -- is gisterme expected to believe what (s)he says?

To suspect that gisterme frequently, and in consequential places, says things (s)he does not believe is to doubt the human decency of gisterme.

Nonetheless, after enough answers that divert from fundamentals, that question becomes an essential one to ask - - and to consider in context.

rshow55 - 12:14pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11397 of 11402)

We all make mistakes. But, in our role as social human beings, we are expected to believe what we say - - and so we are expected to check, and are expected to be for right answers.

If you misstate payoffs, or costs, or risks, or time horizons -- those are consequential mistakes -- and if those mistakes are intentional, they are fraud -- something the Enron situation is making increasingly clear to a wide public.

One can fairly ask about the statements of payoffs, costs, risks, and time horizons associated with missile defense, as well.

rshow55 - 02:16pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11398 of 11402)

Inquiry on Antimissile Contract Is Sought By WILLIAM J. BROAD

lchic - 03:15pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11399 of 11402)

see