![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (7611 previous messages)
lunarchick
- 05:02pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7612
of 7770)
lunarchick@www.com
That figure (+ mortgage repayment shown) would set up the
structures for a decent sized village in a third world area of need.
So if every American made this commitment to the people in need,
over ten years - the world would be a changed place! Gates-y, and
his ilk, coming in with online education. 'What a wonderful world'
(thanks Louis)..
rshowalter
- 05:16pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7613
of 7770) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
The world has many risks, and costs, and needs.
gisterme and I agree on this. Missile defense can be
thought of as an "insurance policy" - as money spent, to deal with a
risk, over a period of time, for a cost.
When you face a risk, and consider finding ways to insure against
it (or consider ways to reduce the risk) -- you ask a series of
questions.
1. Is this a risk work considering? (In the
real context.) I think everybody is agreed that it is, at the
worth considering level.
2. If I "buy insurance" or make a precautionary
expenditure to reduce this risk, what do I get, in terms of
net reduction of risk, under the different alternatives
that are available?
3. What do the alternatives cost?
* * * * * *
To make a decision on these things, reasonable judgements about
quantity have to be made, and balanced.
I wonder if gisterme or anybody else disagrees, so far?
rshowalter
- 05:24pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7614
of 7770)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I say that, when you look at the risk, in context, the missile
defense programs being sold by the administration are grossly bad
deals -- dishonestly presented - - from the viewpoint of the real
interests of ordinary Americans.
Now, that depends on some judgements on numbers.
Judgements about the magnitude of the risk itself,
and the net advantage of missile defense efforts.
Judgements about the chance of missile defense
programs working.
When I look at what is being proposed, from the point of view of
the nation as a whole -- it is a terribly bad deal -- a shuck - a
fraud.
But it is a deal that is being sold very, very hard. It makes
sense to ask why.
lunarchick
- 05:25pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7615
of 7770)
lunarchick@www.com
It takes a whole village
to raise a child. This ancient African proverb teaches eternal
truth. No man, woman, or family is an island.
It took 50 years for the Macedonian/Scicillian family to build
their house and one minute for fire from the sky to destroy it.
For some the war is
over when the noise of destruction ceases. For others it's years
of poverty and pain, to rebuild to provide Maslow's (search) basic,
bottom wrung shelter ... preceeding all else ... a home is the
primary 'God
Send'.
lunarchick
- 05:32pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7616
of 7770)
lunarchick@www.com
On risk Showalter, the risk of having the home and village
destroyed, by an American bomb from the sky, has been statistically
HIGH in post-WWII 'trouble spots' ... perhaps that's why some have
opted for the totalitarian (!?!).
Money
to burn!
rshowalter
- 05:32pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7617
of 7770)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
MD6972 rshowalter
7/12/01 10:00am
Comment on A Missile Defense Test for Congress http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/opinion/12THU3.html
The first line is understated:
" The Pentagon has not yet developed any
technology that can reliably shoot down enemy missiles."
That line is true, but could be expanded to read:
" The Pentagon has not yet developed any
technology, even on paper, at the level of plans that could
be presented for examination by independent experts , that can
or could possibly, much less reliably, shoot down enemy missiles.
" The proposal floated with the fewest
technical problems, the Garwin proposal, could not be used
anywhere near the Alaskan site -- but would have to be deployed
within a few hundred miles, or less, of the fired missile being
defended against.
" The "smart rock" proposal which has been most
tested has had little success --even on tests that are far easier
than tactical conditions would be.
" The lasar weapon proposals -- all of them,
whether ground or space based - are deeply flawed at a number of
technical levels involving resolution and control, and are
almost trivial to defend against with reflective coatings. http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm
 
(153 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
