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?
(7986 previous messages)
- 06:45am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7987
NOT ONE opponent of NMD has YET come up with a strategy to deal
with a small-scale nuclear attack against the Continental United
I hear alot of anti-NMD posturing but not ONE word of how the US
should handle such an attack.
Now tell me it will never happen.
- 06:54am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7988
Bush is NOT my president.
EAsy, keep Nuclear subs, and other launch vehicles far enough
away that they are no threat.
You can't launch a nuke from your pocket.
- 07:21am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7989
8/14/01 1:49pm . . . the defense departments list of rogue
nations is not exactly impressive:
7/12/01 1:25pm starts with
" The "misconception" that "states like North
Korea and Iran would not dare attack the United States, knowing
they would pay a terrible price in response." ....... has been
extensively discussed on this thread, and has included many able
people - including a representative of the administration,
gisterme , who has worked hard. If you search "deter*" -- this
thread, there are 5 search pages, including many more links than
alas, for now, the search function has been removed, but
rshowalter 7/12/01 1:25pm includes 40 links, only a few of my own on
the issue of deterrance.
I believe that MANY of these links are worth reading, and
represent careful, well grounded views. rshowalter 7/12/01 1:25pm
ends as follows:
" There has been little argument at all in
support of the idea that there are "undeterrable rogues" out there
to motivate the administration's missile defense proposals. Of
that small amount of fragmentary argument for "undeterrable
rogues" - none has made any sense to me. Except as a pretext
for supporting a program motivated for other reasons -- reasons
other than any valid defense of the US - since the proposals are
so technically (and diplomatically) flawed.
A missile sheild is moot when someone can just sneak a nuclear
warhead or biological warhead in to the U.S. in a suitcase.
Worse than moot -- because it wastes resources, and because the
defense of such a corrupt position corrupts, and weakens, all the
institutions and people involved -- both because credibility is
lost, and because after organizations start engaging in persistent,
conspiratorial deception and avoidance of fundamentals, they become
MUCH less capable of doing jobs which require honest checking -- as
essentially all real engineering and defense jobs do.
So the cost of this fiasco is FAR above the "sticker price" --
high as that "sticker price" is.
The question starts being raised - outside the US, and inside,
too -- how do we trust either the judgement, the competence, of the
good faith of the US "military industrial complex?"
The efforts to push missile defense, including many arguments by
gisterme on this thread, make the question a just one.
- 07:40am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7990
Some excellent letters to the editor:
A Missile Shield, Deconstructed http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/26/opinion/L26MISS.html
referring to MAD ISN'T CRAZY by Thomas L. Friedman http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/24/opinion/24FRIE.html
- 07:41am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7991
MAD may not be crazy - but we can hope to do better -- but we
have to be CAREFUL -- lest we do much worse.
At the same time, technical realities need to be remembered, and
more clearly established. At a technical level, MAD isn't
being threatened at all, because the "saran" missile shield is no
shield at all -- and can't be, with respect to the levels of
technical competence that the Russians, Chinese, and others have.
- 09:39am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7992
"We have to be careful that the world does work"
However, who will ultimately be in charge of that "world"?
- 09:44am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7993
Showalter's firing on eight cylinders :)
Whilst in the City
today i was, quite apart from choosing beads and crystals and having
a tete-a-tete with a circumspect and sapping data base, thinking
about the classification of information.
Two continuums arose:
(1) data information knowledge wisdom
thought invention patent copyright innovation inputs process
outputs marketing sales consumption
The point regarding classification is simply this ... quite apart
from SLA .. wow Pluto inspired such an indepth draft paper .. much
that is classified is innovation. Sitting above which are thought
and invention. Innovation is too far down the line not to be
generally understood by .. for want of a better word - 'Academics'.
So it seems with MD. The Academics understand the physics and
science appropriate to MD and the Sheild.
Perhaps many technical people further down the line - a the
innovation point - don't understand the enabling principles. Much,
therefore, that they try to classify ... has already flown the
Comments on this ...
New York Times on the Web Forums Science