[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 (401 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:19am Mar 12, 2002 EST (#402 of 407) Delete Message

MD401 manjumicha2001 3/12/02 12:18am includes this:

" I agree with you that NMD is a program that is 50 years old and has proven to be terminally challenged by the laws of physics.

That's a key question of fact that needs to be widely, persuasively explained , so that the people who have to make decisions relating to that fact can do so. Because right answers matter a great deal here.

manjumicha2001 3/12/02 12:18am continues:

"Having said that, however, I do not believe the world turns based on merits alone. Pathos (either of a nation or people) matter and more often than not, it is the driving force of the events that shape history. "

Pathos and folly may be understandable, but still regrettable, when matters of life, death, and agony are at stake. Here's a piece of MD382 rshow55 3/11/02 12:13pm

"Facts and ideas, combined together in space and time so that people can "connect the dots", as Erica Goode says in Finding Answers In Secret Plots form the ideas that people and groups have. -- These ideas are patterns, which work well enough to sustain action and belief in some ways, though they may be totally invalid otherwise. These ideas, constructed by "connecting the dots" may produce grossly pathological results -- . . . Or they may be correct.

. (Almarst commented on Goode's piece in MD384 almarst-2001 3/11/02 12:29pm )

"To judge that, one checks the "facts" "connected together" and one sees if the pattern conjured up fits more facts - - including many more facts. The process of judging this, like the process of putting the "explanation" together - happens in people's minds - and can't be forced. But the matching process -- the "connecting of the dots" -- is what effective persuasion is all about. And the internet offers new ways, some shown here, of connecting information in space and time that would otherwise be diffused and unconnectable.

Because the results of "pathos" may be so serious, almarst-2001 3/11/02 10:56am it seems worthwhile to set out postings from manjumicha2001 - so that if anyone wishes to "connect some dots" they may form some judgements about who (s)he is, and who (s)he converses with.

MD18 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 6:32pm ... MD21 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 6:52pm
MD26 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 7:09pm ... MD27 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 7:13pm
MD29 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 7:19pm ... MD30 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 7:20pm
MD32 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 7:43pm ... MD35 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 7:59pm
MD37 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 8:22pm ... MD40 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 8:29pm
MD41 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 8:31pm ... MD226 manjumicha2001 3/6/02 12:02am
MD374 manjumicha2001 3/11/02 1:28am ... MD375 manjumicha2001 3/11/02 1:54am
MD401 manjumicha2001 3/12/02 12:18am ...

Wouldn't it be dramatic if "easy inferences" from such dot-connecting happened to be right?

rshow55 - 08:21am Mar 12, 2002 EST (#403 of 407) Delete Message

If people in positions of power and trust in the Bush administration are taking, and have taken, the stances in MD401 manjumicha2001 3/12/02 12:18am and said and done what they have -- isn't that interesting? Disturbing?

If people agreed that " NMD is a program that is 50 years old and has proven to be terminally challenged by the laws of physics." what would it make practical and moral sense for us to do?

manjumicha2001 - 11:50am Mar 12, 2002 EST (#404 of 407)

Well, on the other hand, you will have hard time proving NMD crowd wrong when all they need to repeat is; "system is not perefect but we are getting there. we need more research and testings". I mean you can't discredit something that doesn't exist yet, right? The hazy promise of possibilities occasionally showcased by controlled (or fixed as you might call it) tests (always accompanied by disclaimers limiting the objectives and parameters of the test), coupled with public's yearnings for "ya soon we will be able to nuke you without worrying about your puny 20th century missiles" - type of future, will certainly guarantee $300 billion expedniture for next 5 years....that would be my bet if i am a wagering type.

almarst-2001 - 12:49pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#405 of 407)

manjumicha2001 3/12/02 11:50am

In my view, the question is not if its feasible or not. One should assume it may become effective to the certain degree - the degree of effectiveness which will be surelly kept in secret

And here is the major danger: Unlike the MAD could be established based on an openly known and verifiable capability - number and type of warheads and missiles, the MD creates the unpredictable situation. With unknown consequences and possible "assimetric" response.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 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