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.

gisterme - 11:41am Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6792 of 11911)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 7/8/01 7:30am ): i "...(The corpus of gisterme here bears reading -- ..."

Thank you, Robert! You flatter me.

"....it could not possibly be occurring without the knowledge, approval, and backing, of the highest levels of the Bush administration)..."

BwaHaHahahaHeHeeee...giggle..snort... :-)

Why couldn't my opinions possibly be occurring without the knowledge, approval, and backing, of the highest levels of the Bush administration, Robert? Why couldn't gisterme write whatever he wants here in the land of the free? This isn't China. Don't you write whatever you want? You obviously do, whether it has anything to do with reality or not. Does somebody have to approve what you write? I'd really like to know why you would make such a ridiculous statement. Is it that you just can't believe that the "Robert Showalter Soapbox" doesn't get the attention of more than a handful of people, and that those few don't inhabit lofty offices of power? Whatever shortcomings you may have, Robert, you're not lacking for ego.

At least your fantasies are flattering, Robert; but I'll say again, other than being a taxpayer and voter, I have nothing to do with the US government. If you think I'm such an effective proponent for the administration, perhaps they'll offer me a job...yet, if I applied, somehow I doubt that they'd place much stock in my application if I listed you as a reference (presuming they'd even know who you are). :-) They'd say, "Why should we hire you?", and I'd say, "Because Robert Showalter thinks I'm already working for you and doing a great job. If you can't belive it, just check out the NYT Missile defense forum!". They'd say "Robert WHO?...don't call us, we'll call you."

rshowalter - 11:47am Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6793 of 11911)
Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

Interesting response.

gisterme - 11:57am Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6794 of 11911)

lunarchick wrote ( lunarchick 7/8/01 6:43am ):

Sustainable development:

Never before in the history of the world has the viability of much of the life on this planet been under threat from humanity.

Nice post, lunarchick. And yet, apparently, life on our planet has experienced at least five mass extinctions without the benefit of human presence. Isn't it amazing that no matter how important we think we are, no matter how brilliant our rhetoric or well proven our points, they could all be rendered forever mute by a single "dumb" rock from space?

gisterme - 12:09pm Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6795 of 11911)

rshowalter wrote( rshowalter 7/8/01 7:30am ): "...and their inability to check even the most basic things on which they are asking us to spend huge amounts of money and risk our lives..."

Robert,

1) Please explain how developing a BMD to protect against a limited ICBM attack from N. Korea, Iraq or Iran risking our lives?

2) How is $5/month per American over a period of 10 years such a financial sacrefice if it could save even ONE city ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD?

I'd say that the depth of YOUR compassion seems to "make Machiavelli seem like one of the Angels of Mercy"

rshowalter - 12:13pm Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6796 of 11911)
Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

gisterme , there's something called the genetic fallacy in logic -- and I'm sure you know it.

According to the fallacy, if someone of low credibility says something -- then that thing is wrong.

Of course, that doesn't follow.

Especially if the stance is "you don't believe me . . . look for yourself."

I say that

" It is technically easy to make missiles and warheads immune to lasar weapons -- even if the lasar weapons did achieve a chain of miracles related to optical resolution and control. See: Reflective Coatings http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm "

You don't have to trust what I say -- look for yourself ! Punch the button and look, and if you can't interpret what's said (standard material in 1975) -- then find someone you do respect to interpret for you.

It looks to me like it is easy to make missiles and warheads immune from lasar weapons of known wavelength (the kind the US has) .

Perhaps you don't trust my judgement -- that's your privilege. Look for yourself.

rshowalter - 12:18pm Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6797 of 11911)
Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

gisterme , I'm not only strongly for nuclear disarmament, I also advocate military means to disarm rogue nuclear threats to the United States, if it can be reasonably done -- and I'd bet that it might well be possible. You could check that, if you looked in MD266-269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am

I've ALSO said, that a MD program that worked would be a good thing, in a negotiated context, worth working for.

But the lasar programs can't work.

Garwin's proposal could, and I've said so.

rshowalter - 12:20pm Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6798 of 11911)
Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

Military expenditures on unworkable junk are against the national interest, from a VERY wide range of points of view.

General Douglas MacArthur would have been quick to say so. So would Eisenhower.

So, I should think, would any military officer speaking in public.

rshowalter - 12:23pm Jul 9, 2001 EST (#6799 of 11911)
Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

The ladies, gentlemen, and other ranks working on the space and ground based lasar programs could be doing much more useful work.

Much more fun to do, and work needed in the national interest.

And the Bush administration would get plenty of credit of redeploying the assets to do it.

(5112 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense