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 - 01:22pm Feb 21, 2002 EST (#11699 of 11713)

I think a lot of people should think about the effect of lies on decisions -- and on how people usually make decisions that work reasonably well. When inconsistency relations arise, it is an ordinary human expectation that they get resolved.

In the active defense of the administrations "missile defense" fraud, something very different happens. The effort is to distract, to do whatever has to be done to avoid closure.

The situation is well illustrated on this thread, but this thread is, after all, a "backwater".

A better illustration -- and one that should impress people who think about it - - comes from the administration's response, or non-response, to coverage and opinion of this newspaper.

On this thread, there are more than 92 references - you can search and find them - to pieces by Thomas Friedman - many connected to pieces of Friedman's where he makes clear his opinon that missile defense (I think this is an exact quote) is "The defense that can't work against the threat that doesn't exist."

Also many references to Maureen Dowd, who has been scathing on the subject of missile defense in many beautiful OpEd pieces.

What I post here may not count for so much -- but Dowd and Friedman are stars, and what they write packs a whollop.

Now, how is it that the TIMES has not been informed, in ways that might perhaps be indirect, but that could easily be effective if there was substance behind them, that the missile defense programs had technical merit?

If there was any decent argument that they were in error, the argument would have been made -- and because the TIMES is basically careful about facts - would have gotten a careful hearing.

"Missile defense" is nonsense. A fraud. Defended by "big lie" tactics, including those often shown by Mazza, that were developed carefully by the Nazis, and carefully taught to the Americans (I studied them.)

What is strange is that the fraud persists - - and that the administration is staking so much on it.

Things can be checked -- and there has been so much effort to keep the checking form occurring! MD11045-11048 rshow55 1/25/02 2:34pm

We're dealing with a fraud here, and a very strange one. So much, diplomatically and financially, spent on a program with very little to recommend it -- a system that is clearly incapable of ever handling competently designed countermeasures.

rshow55 - 01:37pm Feb 21, 2002 EST (#11700 of 11713)

I think lchic - is profoundly right in her remarks about the need for dramatic presentation, for patterns that can be made to fit into people's head. Her examples, linked to movies, are very good. MD11689 lchic 2/21/02 8:58am

I think she's right that

The 'truth' of the past half century might be a 'new-to-you' as yet unrevealed pattern. Truth patterns might play out and 'fit' into minds more easily than the 'pattern of lies' that has been put out as 'dis-information' over past years.

Of course CONGRESS could have a hearing into the matter .. or .. simply remove much funding from missile production and upkeep ... redeploying redundant minds towards more useful humanitarian work.

But for that to happen, voters would have to understand patterns where there has been much effort, over half a century, to conceal and muddle some fundamentals.

Movie - script - making it 'work' http://www.writersconference.com/crew/progmain.html

An illustrated script of Casablanca http://www.edict.com.hk/movies/casablanca/casablanca1.htm

Casablanca is common ground, something culturally literate Americans know -- and that people the whole world over understand, at the level of sympathy, and intellectually, too. I used the movie as a point of departure in PSYCHWAR, CASABLANCA, AND TERROR , which tells a key story about the Cold War, interesting to American, Russians, and others. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/0 Especially the core story part, from posting 13 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/12 to posting 23 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/22 There is a comment in #26 that I feel some may find interesting, as well...

A fairly compact ongoing summary of this thread from September 25, 2000 to date, which is too large for easy reading, but not for sampling, is set out with many links in Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror -- from #151 on... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/159

PSYCHWAR, CASABLANCA, AND TERROR sets out basic mechanisms of how psychological injury happens. It deals with patterns of psychological warfare that are still ongoing -- where lies are weapons. A key point is how psychologically injurious, and devastating, the psychological injury associated with deception can be.

The lies of "missile defense" persist because they are part of a tradition of psychological warfare - - and in psychological warfare, mistakes aren't corrected so that mutual cooperation and good decisions can occur. Lies are defended, so that progress and good decisions can be prevented.

rshow55 - 01:50pm Feb 21, 2002 EST (#11701 of 11713)

MD11575 rshow55 2/16/02 12:45pm illustrates how far the work of Mazza and Gisterme departs from direct approaches, intended to get to the truth. Diversion, distraction, and avoidance of fundamentals are the watchwords.

The Coyle Report http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmdcoylerep.pdf isn't easy reading, but it makes clear how very far away from any tactically effective missile defense our programs are - and how inflexible and vulnerable to simple countermeasures they inherently are.

MD8240-8241 rshowalter 8/30/01 9:12am

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense