[F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (7144 previous messages)

rshowalter - 07:15pm Jul 17, 2001 EST (#7145 of 7147) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

MD7093 rshowalter 7/16/01 5:51pm

Kadish's program has no possibility of defending the United States in any sensible sense -- and at least many of the engineers involved, at Boeing , TRW , Lockheed-Martin , and elsewhere, have to know it.

The simulation people, who've been in trouble for more than a decade now, can't escape knowing what they are up against - not only in simulation, but in hardware which is harder.

We're dealing with a fraud - with its only justification giving the US military-industrial complex something to do --- and a way to enrich people with special "ins" -- such as the people at Carlyle.

The potential for impropriety surely exists. And the patterns shown in Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm by LESLIE WAYNE March 5, 2001 are ugly.

. Does Starwars work? - The Guardian,7365,434805,00.html

MD7098 rshowalter 7/16/01 7:52pm

The administration is advocating, against a prepoderance of evidence, a program that will waste many tens of billions of dollars, and make the world a more dangerous place, but that will probably enrich key members of this administration, including George W. Bush, personally.

I've offered to help check a number of things -- based on information in the open literature. This program, considered as a defense of the United States, is a shuck, in Menken's phrase.

" As devoid of merit as a herringfish is of fur."

The threat isn't real, and the technology Bush is actually asking us to support, up against realistic challenges, can't work.

The technical issues that are decisive are open literature issues and can be checked.

Any takers?

What Wolfowitz advises may well be exactly the opposite of the national interest -- though not, perhaps, against his own.

rshowalter - 07:33pm Jul 17, 2001 EST (#7146 of 7147) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

MD7044 rshowalter 7/15/01 10:31am . . . MD7045 rshowalter 7/15/01 10:31am

People should take the time to look at the


The Coyle report reinforces some things that I've been saying on this thead -- that, in essential ways, the missile defense program not only lacks credible tests (the test yesterday was little more than a stunt with a 100 million $ price tag) for the program to be any real good, it would have to come up with "miracle" after "miracle" --advances that appear to be totally improbable in terms of extensive open literature performance data. This is a point that ought to be checked, completely and in public, because so much is at stake.

rshowalter - 07:35pm Jul 17, 2001 EST (#7147 of 7147) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

The Garwin -- "close-in -- boost phase" approach might actually work, for a very limited purpose -- but that isn't what the administration is asking Congress to support --- and that separate proposal would be a very logical modification of the ABM treaty, as well.

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company