New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

dirac_10 - 03:04pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5451 of 5462)

bedix - 02:54pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5450 of 5450)

All I have to say is that Mr. Bush was not very astute in unilaterally announcing his missile plans.

The Europeans are like hearding cats. Unilateral is the only option. Although, the majority of european countries seem to support it.

I was always taught to think first, then act. Except in dire emergencies, thinking first is still the best of all action.

Well, after his humiliation and forced groveling to the Communist Chinese, because he didn't consider what would happen if they called his bluff, he, or his handlers, rather, have pretty much done the right thing, if fact, exactly what Bill Clinton was doing.

gisterme - 03:16pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5452 of 5462)

possumdag wrote: "...So the USA is still being built via the importation of educated people reared and trained at the expense of other nations. So what's new ?..."

I doubt that that's a fair statement, possumdag. I don't have any statistics in front of me but my gut says that far more people come to the US to be educated and then go back home.

Educated immigrants don't come to the US by coersion. They come because they want to come and many more get turned down for immigration than are accepted.

In any case, international educational exchange would seem to present positive benefits far more valuable in terms of international understanding than the basic cost of the education, wherever it took place. In my veiw, immersion is by far the best way for outsiders to understand a culture other than their native culture.

gisterme - 03:23pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5453 of 5462)

rahowalter wrote: "...By ordinary scientific and engineering standards, the program is preposterous, ... The missile defense program clearly does take attention away from other threats -- and while doing so, increases the threats to the United States..."

NOT! BMD addresses one specific type of threat, ballistic missiles. Other types of threats are addressed in other ways.

What ever happened to that "protect the windows but not the front door" argument that the anti-BMD folks kept throwing out earlier on this thread? Both the windows and the doors need to be protected keep one's house safe from intruders.

rshowalter - 03:35pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5454 of 5462)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme 6/19/01 3:16pm we agree about that. And if there's any area, anywhere, where the US can be said to lead -- I have to think, warts and all, that it is higher education -- and on-the-job training, too.

We care about it, we spend a lot of money, effort and status on it, and there are a lot of good things.

Not that there aren't a lot of bad things about our educational systems (or anybody else's) -- but people come over here to study for good reasons, and very often, serve themselves and their countries well.

And of course it is a benefit to the US to have good minds coming in.

gisterme - 03:36pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5455 of 5462)

rshowalter wrote: "...And the money [for BMD] would be a mistake, if the technology and the strategic consequences are not both subject to real scrutiny.

Scrutinized by who, Robert? You? The US military is quite able to determine whether their contractors have achieved the design critera for any particular system. Those contractors also know that their client will cut them off if they don't perform within a reasonable amount of time.

Would you deliver all the technical and operational details of such a system to those who might desire to nuke your country, just to make their task easier? I don't know what YOU would call that if you did it, but I would call it treason, Robert. What if they decided to target Madison Wisconson just to prove they could hit the heartland? Wouldn't you be proud of yourself then. Sheesh.

gisterme - 03:40pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5456 of 5462)

rshowalter wrote: "...On the matter of testing, and the general need for technical sanity in the administration's unpatriotic madness here..."

You should take a good look in the mirror before you call ANYBODY unpatriotic, Robert, unless you just don't mind being a hyprocite.

gisterme - 03:46pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5457 of 5462)

possumdag wrote: "...Tallyho! At the pow-wow .... exactly who was bloodied after the first kill?..."

What kill was that possumdag? I didn't hear that anybody got bloodied or killed. Sometimes I don't think you people are interested in peace at all. All your delight is in bad-mothing those that don't agree with your little view of reality.

rshowalter - 03:48pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5458 of 5462)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

in 5453 gisterme deals with a number of questions

For each of them, I wish that some staffing depth, and a workable umpiring mechanism, were in place -- neither all that major, as far as resources go -- but both needed for certain kinds of closure -- or even provisional closure.

Let me go back and look at some links.

gisterme , - did you notice the SEARCH function that's been added within the last week?

It makes life more convenient.

gisterme - 03:53pm Jun 19, 2001 EST (#5459 of 5462)

cod37 wrote: "...Missile trajectories are very predictable and can be easily back-tracked to their point of origin..."

That's true cod, ballistic missile trajectories can be backtracked, but as we sit here and communicate on this thread, any ballistic missile launched in the world will be detected and pinpointed within seconds of launch. No need to backtrack. That's not "starwars" that's current reality.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense