[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 (542 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:18pm Mar 14, 2002 EST (#543 of 1331) Delete Message

At one level, these questions aren't controversial. When pressed, people concede such points. 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. 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. American people WANT TO believe that NMD works and politicans (and whatever-hypernated-complexes associated with them) will happily oblige them and make some buck in the process.....that my friend is the wheels of history

MD399 rshow55 3/11/02 7:58pm ... MD400 lchic 3/11/02 8:03pm
MD402 rshow55 3/12/02 8:19am ... MD403 rshow55 3/12/02 8:21am

MD403 asks:

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?

MD404 manjumicha2001 3/12/02 11:50am doesn't contest the technical point, but makes a key political point, reinforced by political usages such as those of Ralph Reed set out in MD158 rshow55 3/3/02 2:54pm ... manjumicha2001 3/12/02 11:50am says

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.

Is it possible to do better than that?

rshow55 - 08:25pm Mar 14, 2002 EST (#544 of 1331) Delete Message

I'm beginning to think it is -- had an interesting conversation today related to the point. If people with power started to ask key questions about facts . . . we might find that some truths that have been "too weak" might be too weak no longer.

Suppose the technical points in
MD14 rshow55 3/1/02 6:07pm ... were contested, in the presence of umpires - and stood up. Suppose they were taken to closure, at a level "beyond politics" -- so that practically any sane person, looking at the facts, and "connecting the dots" would agree on technical facts?

Much might change.

I've got some hope. It is as if a request I made yesterday was answered. Maybe some minds can be changed - in ways that might help change some hearts, as well.

That might be a practical thing to do. Lies (and muddles) can be powerful -- but when questions are asked, forcefully enough, muddles and travesties are unstable. And sometimes, when the muddles are longstanding enough - situations are somewhat like the story of "the Emperor's New Clothes." - - People know there is a problem, even when they deny it - - and solutions can be welcomed even by some "opposers."

If people with power wanted some of these muddles clarified, clarification would be likely to happen. Maybe some people of responsibility and power do.

lchic - 08:26pm Mar 14, 2002 EST (#545 of 1331)

I mentioned the 'Yates' trial in Texas yesterday .. a point that comes to mind here is this ..

    How 'qualified' is a jury, drawn from a street address book and brought into a court room, how qualified are these ordinary folk - washed in their daily drizzel of Texan logic, how qualifed are they to determine if the woman is or is not psychotic. It could be argued that they are just not qualified at all. Raises the point that perhaps the point regarding the woman's state of mind should be determined by experts .. and stated as an undisputable 'fact'. The fact is she was suffering psychotic depression!
    The same need for a scientific finding by scientific experts was seen to be required in the Australian Azaria Chamberlin case - baby taken by dingo. Here a labTechie put paint scrapings from under a car glove box into test tubes let them ferment and said it was blood ... the jury said okay .. It wasn't blood it was paint. The dingo did take the baby.
The above are relatively 'simple' examples of the need for people who have background and understanding to look at matter to produce 'truth fact'. The same must apply in the technical spheres where it may be too easy to 'pull the wool' over the eyes of the ordinary tax payer.

rshow55 - 08:32pm Mar 14, 2002 EST (#546 of 1331) Delete Message

Especially when "the powers that be" work to deny facts. is a great and wrenching reference.

Part of the reason "no one remembers" is that facts were denied us. almarst-2001 3/14/02 5:34pm

More Messages Recent Messages (785 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