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 - 02:16pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11398 of 11410)

Inquiry on Antimissile Contract Is Sought By WILLIAM J. BROAD

lchic - 03:15pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11399 of 11410)

While defense procurement practices are highly bureaucratic, the benefits are equally rewarding, since “the Pentagon has deep pockets,” he added
see ~ see also

lchic - 04:28pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11400 of 11410)

~ . ~ : ~ see

lchic - 08:00pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11401 of 11410)

Extremely large numbers can be fairly meaningless. One Billion US was the cost of the operation for Australia when we helped in East Timor in the interim period of six months prior to the UN taking over. Logistics, transport, soldiers, wages, and the rest. So for a $US1billion one would expect a sizable package of real accountability.

rshow55 - 08:17pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11402 of 11410)

Plan to Stop Missile Threat Could Cost $238 Billion by JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/international/01MISS.html

" Building and operating the major missile defense programs now under development by the Bush administration could cost as much as $238 billion by 2025.... "

The cost of accountability, the cost of checking for money and technical facts, would pay enormous dividends for the nation -- and make us all safer.

The main cost would not be nearly as much as a billion dollars in money -- but would involve something precious and rare -- courage.

Some key players, responsible people, would have to have the courage to ask real questions -- and not accept "trust us," an answer acceptable almost nowhere else, from the DOD and its contractors.

lchic - 09:00pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11403 of 11410)

Enron hearings will become emblems of the Bush administration. The themes explored in the cut and thrust of the multi-pronged enquiries go to the very heart of how the US is being run: the function and dysfunction of twenty-first century capitalism, the interplay between big business and government, and the executive's prerogative to conduct its dealings in secret http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,645760,00.html

lchic - 09:17pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11404 of 11410)

Whitehall officials said that it was becoming increasingly difficult to back fully the US stance.

Peter Hain, the Europe Minister, strengthened the sense of growing tension when he said yesterday that Britain would not be America's 'patsy'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,648119,00.html

lchic - 09:21pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11405 of 11410)

It seems that the 'goodwill' the USA enjoyed for the past months won't stay good if there is an 'immature' approach to Foreign Policy on the part of the US.

mazza9 - 11:45pm Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11406 of 11410)
Louis Mazza

For once I must agree with lchic! There is absolute proof that in 1996 the evil Bush Administration, lead by his Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, conspired with Enron to develop a power plant in India. The default on this loan is what is now plaguing the Bush Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin.

Yeah those evil old Republicans are being allowed to get away with too much. Ron Brown's boss should be brought to justice!!!

LouMazza

gisterme - 12:25am Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11407 of 11410)

rshow55 2/8/02 8:18pm

"...Missile defense is a valid concern. There are strong reasons to be concerned about weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, and the ways they might be delivered.

But we need to deal with these issues in ways that can work . Not ways that cannot possibly work..."

Couldn't agree more, Robert.

Not building a missile defense is a way of stopping missiles that can't possible work. That's why we're building it and it's already having success in tests.

Umpires are only useful when there are black and white rules in a bounded situation, like a game. The umpire makes a judgement as to whether or not a rule has been violated or satifsied. He has a rule book to base his judgement on. That's a very objective environment.

A discussion like this is not an objective environment. For it to become that, folks would need to be required to stick to facts. You'd be OUT on the very first call, Robert, because, despite your frequent pronouncements to the contrary, you think facts are irrelevant. If you didn't you wouldn't ignore them.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense