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 - 04:12pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11416 of 11426)

"The thing you haven't quite gotten around to showing is just what an umpire would do in a subjective environment where there seem to be no rules."

Of course you're right that there'd have to be rules. Rules that made sense, not just to me, and not just to you -- but to a lot of people.

I thought I'd been clear enough about "what an umpire would do" ... but since you think I haven't been clear enough - I haven't been. I'll try to be.

The umpiring would have to occur in an arrangement set up to get closure -- not on this thread, where closure, as a matter of structure, is impossible.

I've mentioned the people I thought best as umpires. There may be better umpires, but I've thought the people who prepare the professional engineering exams, in the relevant fields would be very good.

That's just a suggestion - but I think a good one --- and the intent would be real independence.

If you're interested in getting right technical answers - not my answers, or your answers, or anybody in particular's answers -- but the right ones -- I think there are ways to do that, that would be effective, and honorable for all concerned, and, in your phrase, likely to "save the taxpayers a lot of money."

Let me go back and review some of the things that we've talked about (yes, you and me) -- and things I've said, and see how I can make things clearer. It seems to me that, given a desire for right answers, there ought to be a lot of good ways to get facts straight. Not feelings, but facts.

My suggestion for getting things checked would only be a point of departure -- the key thing is that questions of fact, on what can be done on the basis of the open literature -- and what breakthroughs are required, could be adressed.

I've talked to some people in organizations fairly seriously about getting this done, and though nobody's written a check, it seems likely that the checking could be done, on a fair basis, without cost to the government. The key problem, it seems to me, would be to get representatives of the military, or the contactors, with names, and PE tickets at stake, to participate in clear engineering discussions of what is possible in terms of the open literature, and what is not.

gisterme - 04:26pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11417 of 11426)

rshow55 2/10/02 1:57pm

"...One question I'm not clear on is "what is being adjusted?"..."

That's because you either don't bother to check references or you're unable to understand them. It's the mirror that's being manipulated.

It boggles my mind that you could write all the reams of stuff you do and make such definate statements as to what's possible and what's not and now admit that you don't even know what we're talking about! That should be proof enough for anybody that your statements so far have lacked any credibility. Checking is only important to you as an abstract concept for use as a tool to muddle the discussion. Umpires? Same thing. You can't seem to do anything for yourself, Robert, except whine and cry. Just like an infant. You whine and cry until somebody brings you a bottle to shut you up...then you throw it on the floor and whine and cry again until somebody comes by to pick it up for you agian. Ad infinitum. Just like a baby in a high chair. And I believe you do that at the expense of others who might constructively contribute to this forum. You don't need umpires, Robert, you just need a good spanking. :-)

You must suppose that given enough confusion your point of view will eventually prevail by volume of words alone even though all the words add up to nonsense. If that's what you suppose, you've underestimated the intelligence of most who might look in on this forum. Even lchic must be wondering about you, Robert. She may be idealistic; but at least she seems honest.

Lchic made a comment above about watching Anthony Hopkins' "Nixon" film...I wonder if watching that brought you to her mind...it did if she is honest.

During the time you were banned, Robert, this forum was actually beginning to work again as a forum should with particiption from more than just a few people. It took folks a while to realize things had changed but then they began to come participate. I'm sincerely sorry that we've fallen back into the SOS.

rshow55 - 04:29pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11418 of 11426)

"it's the mirror that's being manipulated"

Yes, I understood that --- but there is no feedback between the laser and the target, as you've described the situation -- where the exhaust plume is the reference area (I say area, rather than point, because that is what it is.)

If you HAVE no feedback between target and laser -- even if you have the mirror "perfect" with respect to something - - how can that something be the laser - - which has fancy but not absolutely perfect optical characteristics.

If I've missed something, I'm sorry. But it still seems a fair question.

Can you answer?

rshow55 - 04:49pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11419 of 11426)

I notice the quick diversion from 11416 rshow55 2/10/02 4:12pm . . . but the issue of getting facts straight is important, and I'll be spending some time on rshow55 2/10/02 4:12pm

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense