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 - 06:00pm Feb 15, 2002 EST (#11564 of 11571)

We should be acting to reinforce ourselves, and our culture, and to destabilize the aspects of our enemies that make them our enemies.

There are basic human needs, and knowing them gives a sense of both how we are strong, and how we are fragile. And how our enemies are strong, and how they are fragile. We are MUCH stronger, and less fragile, than our enemies if we just play it straight, on issues of fact and straight dealing, and do things that make military sense. Including things needed for effective deterrance, and effective interdiction.

Here are some basic, universal relationships that we need to take into account -- and that make our opportunities clear.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs set out with an essay and image in rshow55 2/9/02 12:09pm and rshowalter 9/24/01 11:05am

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

We have to use the force we have - - but ideas also matter. Berle's laws of power include this

Three: Power is invariably based on a system of ideas of philosophy. Absent such a system or philosophy, the institutions essential to power cease to be reliable, power ceases to be effective, and the power holder is eventually displaced.

Our ideas and ideals, when we live up to them, are vigorous. The system of "ideas" that the terrorists have are contradictory and fragile.

The United States depends on technical competence and straight dealing -- Enronation works against us.

We need to force the terrorists, and the cultures that support to them, to confront the lies and evasions that support terror, and keep them poor. Peace and stability in the long term require that we destabilize these cultures in this way -- enough for our own safety, and for human decency.

For us to be able to do that, we have to be competent and honest ourselves.

If we were, we'd have almost the whole world behind us -- and terrorism would shrivel.

We waste more than resources when we squander our treasure on MD programs that can't work, and cold war weapons that don't matter. We should spend those resources in the national interest. And build our credibility by competent actions, not stupid actions.

rshow55 - 06:11pm Feb 15, 2002 EST (#11565 of 11571)

Taking care of the people in the military-industrial complex, and finding ways that politicians can serve their constituents better than now would have to be part of that.

With honest accounting, and some routine checking -- we could do that, and while doing so make the United States stronger and safer in every way that matters.

gisterme - 06:37pm Feb 15, 2002 EST (#11566 of 11571)

rshow55 2/14/02 6:49pm

Based on the Kennedy/Rumsfeld interview:

http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2001/009.html

You say Mr. Rumsfeld makes:

"...3. The assumption that we will gain by backing missile defense even if we can't convince people that MD is credible, and make it work..."

Heh, heh. How you manage to glean all that from what Mr. Rumsfeld said seems to be another example of your "creativity". Mr. Rumsfeld said:

Now, finally, I don't think many weapons systems arrive full-blown. Senator Levin or somebody mentioned "phased" and "layered." Those are phrases that I think people, not improperly, use to suggest that things don't start and then suddenly they're perfect. What they do is they -- you get them out there, and they evolve over time, and they improve.

And so success -- .... It is something that in the beginning stages is designed to deal with handfuls of these things [missiles] and persuade people that they're not going to be able to blackmail and intimidate the United States and its friends and allies.

All that's said there is that NMD development is a step-by step process. I think you must be referring to some other interview Robert. The "assumptions" you say Mr. Rumsfeld has made are the ones you wish he was making, Robert. It's one thing to make stuff up and attribute it to gisterme. I'm a nobody. It's quite another to do that publically to the Secretary of Defense of the United States. After all, he already knows all the things you're trying so hard to find out. I think he's far more qualified to speak for himself than you are to put words in his mouhth. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Senator Kennedy would agree with that. You make yourself look corrupt by doing stuff like that, Robert.

The only assumption I see that Mr. Rumsfeld has made there is that the missile defense system will work. That's an assumption that's already been shown to be a good one, right here on this board, numerous times. Be that as it may, it's not the bottom line about what can or can't work. The bottom line about that is two out of four successes in the first four test shots. If this couldn't work then the record would be zero out of four. After all, (and by definition), things that can't work never succeed.

Wouldn't you agree, Robert?

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense