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.

mazza9 - 10:01pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#352 of 386)
Louis Mazza

Okay, let's talk missile defense.

Tests have been conducted and successes have occurred. The technology is improving and I have linked this discussion to websites with technical descriptions.

You state that missile defense cannot work and offer no proof. Where have these mythic balloons been tested?

My read of history is that most of the mass murders in the 20th Century were produced by the communist/socialist political philosophy which has no compunction when it comes to starvation or a bullet in the back of the head. We've all seen the stacked skulls of the "Killing Fields". Almarst, wasn't Pol Pot one of those acolytes who studied and learned at the foot of Stalin or was it Lenin?

Bashing the US may be popular but it misses the point. Missile defense works and I'm whelmed that you can't see it.

LouMazza

rshow55 - 10:16pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#353 of 386)

Works for what? What successes are you talking about?

There are very solid reasons why countermeasures for MD are thousands, tens of thousands, or MORE times cheaper to build than the systems themselves.

What "successes" are you talking about? To run away from Congressional oversight, they've classified the whole program - in ways that indicate their successes couldn't stand the light of day.

You quibble that it is hard to put a warhead inside a reflective balloon identical to many other reflective balloons in terms of outside shape and reflectivity?

Balloon decoys are easy enough. - - What if you put the warhead inside one -- (an idea that has been around a while -- discussed by three dozen physicists who were apalled enough by the MD fraud to visit Congress in 2000.)

Reflective materials are easy -- gold coated mylar, long used, has reflectance of about 98% -- and plastic film coatings might well up that reflectivity to 99.9%.

There are also BIG problems, at the computer level, even for simple decoy schemes.

As for getting into more detail - in MD34 rshow55 3/1/02 7:51pm

I commented to manjumicha2001 that I thought the system was, by tactical standards, as "devoid of merit as a herringfish is of fur" -

And suggested that if he wanted to discuss why in detail, that he might download the Coyle Report http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmdcoylerep.pdf and we can get down to cases.

Mazza, why don't you download the report - read it, and tomorrow we can get together, at a time of your convenience, and get down to cases?

almarst-2001 - 10:17pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#354 of 386)

mazza: "Okay, let's talk missile defense... My read of history is that most of the mass murders in the 20th Century were produced by the communist/socialist political philosophy which has no compunction when it comes to starvation or a bullet in the back of the head. We've all seen the stacked skulls of the "Killing Fields". Almarst, wasn't Pol Pot one of those acolytes who studied and learned at the foot of Stalin or was it Lenin?"

Hard to let go?;)

Assuming you are right, you forgot that I do not defend any crimes and any misdeeds. You, on the other hand, seems to defend the crimes of US "because others also commited the crimes". If that comes from the Jesus's ideas, could you point me the source?

And, mazza, as you read the history, its useful not only to list the facts but to try and understand the context and the reasons. In my hamble view, the US was may be the only major country to avoid being criminal. Its past crimes are the least justifiable. Its intentions - unjustifiable at all. Not by any reading of Crist!

rshow55 - 10:18pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#355 of 386)

A lot of background and references for the issues involved are set out in MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am .

NONE of the MD systems that have been discussed on the MD thread have any technical merit at all, from any reasonable tactical perspective.

almarst-2001 - 10:19pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#356 of 386)

Bush's Endless War - http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/030802a.html

A recent Gallup poll of the Muslim world finds a growing resentment of the U.S. As Bush expands the war beyond Afghanistan, some are beginning to wonder whether military strikes are making matters worse. By Sam Parry. March 8, 2002

rshow55 - 10:20pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#357 of 386)

almarst-2001 3/10/02 10:17pm seems entirely right and fair to me.

lchic - 10:21pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#358 of 386)

Countries - if judged from a 'quality of life' perspective - then how does the US stand up?

Look for unnecessary and preventable deaths ... have more people in the US died from gun shot wounds then in the killing fields of Cambodia - perhaps they HAVE!

lchic - 10:24pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#359 of 386)

Modern countries want their people to enjoy life to the highest standards and of the best quality.

That the US has the arrogance to focus directly NuKes on capital cities such as Moscow, Beijing, Baghdad, Terhan, P'yongyang it can expect the people therein to be extremely 'angry'!

(27 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense