[F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (96 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:27pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#97 of 120) Delete Message

Sorry I'm moving slowly. Thinking . .

almarst , lunarchick, and I had a lot of interesting conversations about the media last year.

Technical issues are important here -- the center of this thread -- and they illuminate all the other, larger issues we discuss. The technical situation is such that, with a little application of resources, some key lies would be insupportable , both in the United States, and elsewhere.

Technical links: MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am

lchic - 03:58pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#98 of 120)

    "Gee..I wonder.. is that like a LIE?" mAzzA
Not if you get your 'technical facts straight' mAzzA!

lchic - 04:06pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#99 of 120)

    One or two people can talk into microphones and hear themselves in headphones. The playback of their voice is delayed up to 1/5 second (variable). This delay makes it almost impossible for some people to speak intelligibly because the natural mouth-to-ear feedback mechanism has been tampered with by adding the delay.
There's certainly a 'delay' post Cold War. Is it more than a communications problem?

lchic - 04:06pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#100 of 120)

mAzzAm - are you living in a tin can? ! my answer was in the realm of parable ... YOU ... had to do the thinking.

rshow55 - 04:20pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#101 of 120) Delete Message

It is a communications problem and more.

There are "paradigm conflicts" as well -- and therefore a deep resistance to checking, and refocusing, exactly in those places where it is most needed for progress. Resistances are psychological, and due to interests -- and sometimes (on missile defense, for instance) very conscious, longstanding systems of deceptions and halftruths.

Sometimes, as a matter of geometry, you need an umpire. Someway, somehow, some key "facts" have to be determined so that they fit reality -- are really facts. Lchic and I did an whole long thread on the Guardian -- a piece of work I'm very proud of, and that Dawn should be proud of, as well . . . Paradigm Shift -- whose getting there . . . a lot of stuff on that thread would be useful here.

lchic - 04:23pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#102 of 120)

Constraints on direct communiction regarding the taking down of missiles will include factors such as:

  • Culture
  • National Will
  • Language
  • Timing
  • Face-to-Face
  • Mental attitude
  • Philosophy
  • Statistical appreciation
  • Personal agendas working against

rshow55 - 04:26pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#103 of 120) Delete Message

There are also issues of force . Sometimes a surprisingly small amount can do a lot. For instance, the simple fact that questions are asked on a NYT forum can sometimes elicit answers in a forceful way - - - even answers that effect multibillion dollar projects.

But some motivating force is needed for some jobs - there has to be enough of it -- and it has to be the right kind.

lchic - 04:27pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#104 of 120)

On Culture the world was lulled into the red_phone_button hype ... but who has their finger on the button now - does the button need a 'finger' .... fingers are often said to be 'trigger happy' ... the past has shown that folks in power display lack of empathy with the human condition - life!

lchic - 04:29pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#105 of 120)

So there has to be a National Will, an International Will, a Will from LEADERSHIPS!

So when dangerous antique missiles are thought of as strategic barganing chips ... as in a game, a gamble ... how can that type of thinking amongst leaders be altered?

almarst-2001 - 04:32pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#106 of 120)

NATO - military-industrial complex ...

From yesterday's BBC news:

The NATO REQUIRES its new members to upgrade their military equipment by no other means then BYING the NEW aircrafts from the West. The Chech and Hungary bought Swedish fighters. The General Dynamics and US Gov. works hard to convince Poland to by F16. The stake - $3bn - the entire yearly Polish military budged. Not to mention other things the people of Eastern Europe need.

It seems the "protection" they where promised to get may cost them a business;)

More Messages Recent Messages (14 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

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

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 2002 The New York Times Company