[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 (437 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:42pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#438 of 484) Delete Message

An Advertorial on the NYT OpEd page today is on MD - and is in Since some reading this thread my not take the paper as I do, I'm setting it out here.

No Need To Lie Hiding The Truth About 'Star Wars'

"This certainly has the appearance of a well-orchestrated fraud," MIT physicist Theodore Postal, a critic of the ‘Star Wars’ missile defense program, told The Boston Globe last week. Postal was reacting to a just-released General Accounting Office report documenting how, in a 1997 test, missile defense contractors Boeing and TRW manipulated data to make a failure look like a success.

" Also last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released an analysis of a January 25 anti-missile test that defense contractor Raytheon said "demonstrated the capability" of sea-based missile defense systems. b "This is clearly not true," concluded UCS analyst David Wright, who detailed the test’s many shortcomings.

" The GAO and UCS reports show how the ‘Star Wars’ program depends on rigged tests and overstated successes to justify its existence. But such tactics may no longer be needed: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has now exempted the Missile Defense Agency from normal oversight and accountability.

" The agency "will not be subject to traditional reporting about program timelines and costs. And many of its testing efforts will be free from oversight by the Pentagon’s test evaluation office," Bradley Graham reported in The Washington Post on February 16.

" Several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff "expressed reservations" when briefed by Rumsfeld on the new exemptions, Graham reported. But no matter -- Rumsfeld granted his special dispensation anyway.

" So, as Pentagon generals give defense contractors an estimated QUARTER-OF-A-TRILLION TAX DOLLARS to chase the ‘Star Wars’ fantasy over the next decade, there won’t be any need to lie about it’s failures.

" President Bush has decided to let them hide the truth.

Related Articles, with links are included in :

Whatever We Build Is Good Enough An Interview With Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund Of The Union Of Concerned Scientists by Sharon Basco

When standard operating procedure says "Star Wars" doesn't work, drop the SOP.

A Shot In The Dark? Congress Investigates Missile Defense Cover-Up Controversy by Owen Dyer

Reporters Dig Up The Missile Defense Dirt The Best Of 'Star Wars' Media Coverage by Staff

How Politics Helped Redefine Threat ... Rumsfeld Pares Oversight of Missile Defense Agency ... MIT Team Tied To Questionable Missile Studies ... and more.

Missile Defense Is Not The Answer A Position Paper by Union of Concerned Scientists

Congress: Backing Away From Missile Defense? A Report From The Council For A Livable World by Council for a Livable World

  • *********

    This thread has covered much the same information -- and more, especially about laser based weapons, reviewed in
    MD14 rshow55 3/1/02 6:07pm ... MD15 rshow55 3/1/02 6:10pm

    almarst-2001 - 12:47pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#439 of 484)

    There is a very dangerous propaganda fronts I can detect:

    1. The notion of exclusiness of America as a chosen nation, on the mmision and commited to spread the GOOD to all. Even those who don't understand between RIGHT and WRONG. Even by FORCE.

    2. For the majority of Americans to accept the notion that US "interests" span the Glob.

    Such mixture coupled with wery weak democratic control over the foreign affairs and unprecedented and growing disbalance of economical and military power brings to mind a very vivid analogies in the human's history. Hardly the happy ones. In contrast to the Founder's ideology and the phylosophy behind the US own's Constitution.

    almarst-2001 - 12:57pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#440 of 484)

    "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has now exempted the Missile Defense Agency from normal oversight and accountability."

    As I recall, this is not the only agency being excempted. As well as most of a CIA and other intelligence offices. Widly used not just for intelligence but also for diversions and political manipulations abroad.

    Ones allowed, the exceptions have a tendency to replace the rules.

    rshow55 - 01:01pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#441 of 484) Delete Message

    Almarst, because of my history I'm not sure that I can do a single thing, except post here -- that can be of any use - without violating security laws. I've been threatened before. Do you have contact with political leaders? If someone like Putin, or someone connected to him, could pick up the phone, and talk to people at International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War a good deal might be done - - at least I'd have more of a chance. (Russia has distinguished chapters.)

    More Messages Recent Messages (43 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