New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(716 previous messages)
- 11:44am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#717
I think Bush's political machine deserves an acardemy award for
best producer and scenario award. They sure are geniuses at
recycling decades-old programs and having Bush claim the credit.
After their hollywood job, he comes out like a lone texas ranger who
finanlly does something about bad guys in the town. Their newest
project is so-called bunker-busting mini nukes......like it is new
idea? Like no one has been researching and developing precisely
those weapons for the past 20 years.....:-) Well, the problem with
all these political advertising is that it really knocks the
foundation out of the global nuke control regime. Granted, Bush's
hawks argue that such control systems are wishful thinking and it is
true such regimes do rely on mutual fiction on occasion but US also
has been the biggest benificiaries of it.
Quite frankly, I think Bush's people are losing a grip on some
pretty fundamental issues because of 911 shockwaves and the huge
pressure being piled on them for new approach to global
threats......people in the know should be very worrried about them
losing the direction and focus.....cowboy foreign policy might be a
good domestic politics but carries a huge risk to the natinal
- 12:39pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#718
"Quite frankly, I think Bush's people are losing a grip on some
pretty fundamental issues" . . . .
I think that's right. I spent some time this morning searching
the use of the word "trust" on this thread from September
2000 on - - as posters taking US administration positions use the
word "trust." - - - The "logical structure" of their positions made
more sense to me, every time I looked, if there was a substitution.
" trust us" . . . substitute " submit to
. . . .
For "we need more trust" subsitute "we need more submission."
For "there's more trust between us" read "they're more submissive
The presumption that the US is free to lie, and manipulate and
bias information whenever it suits the purposes of the military - is
now very deep. Our relations with our "vassals" in NATO (see
quote from Chirac, MD276 lchic
3/9/02 3:45am ) take that for granted. Communication to the
American people, far too often, takes that for granted.
I find this very dangerous -- because there ARE reasons out there
why the US military needs to be strong, and part of stong alliances.
Lies are unstable.
They are very dangerous -- dangerous physically, and dangerous to
the ideals that we treasure -- the ideals that often make us proud
to be Americans - the ideals that make our lives worth living.
- 12:41pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#719
"...The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced today it has
successfully completed a test involving a planned intercept of an
intercontinental ballistic missile target..."
"...The test successfully demonstrated exoatmospheric kill
vehicle (EKV) flight performance and "hit to kill" technology to
intercept and destroy a long-range ballistic missile target. In
addition to the EKV locating, tracking, and intercepting the target
resulting in its destruction using only the body-to-body impact,
this test also demonstrated the ability of system elements to work
together as an integrated system. The test involved the successful
integrated operation of space and ground-based sensors and radars,
as well as the Battle Management, Command Control and Communications
(BMC3) function to detect the launch of the target missile, cue an
early warning radar to provide more detailed target location data;
and integration of a prototype X-Band radar (based at Kwajalein) to
provide precise target data to the EKV, which received the target
updates from the In-Flight Interceptor Communications Systems
(IFICS) at Kwajalein..."
The EKV separated from its rocket booster more than 1,400
miles from the target warhead. After separation, it used its
on-board infrared and visual sensors, augmented with the X-Band
radar data provided by BMC3 via the In-flight Interceptor
Communications System, to locate and track the target.
Sensors aboard the EKV also successfully selected the target
instead of three balloon decoys. Only system-generated data
was used for the intercept after the EKV separated from its booster
rocket. A C-band transponder aboard the target warhead did not
provide any tracking or targeting information to the interceptor
after the interceptor was launched..." [emphasis added]
Can't work, Robert??? That's four out of six...sounds like
now that the x-band radar is working there's no further need to use
GPS data to simulate that radar's presence in the system.
We learn to walk by taking one step at a time, right, Robert?
- 12:55pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#720
Nice to have you back, gisterme - - many of your
contributions (90 search pages, as I recall) are now in a hidden
It can't work against any reasonable countermeasures.
Something that Postol, and many others, have pointed out.
How 'bout a fight , gisterme - - where you can't just run
away -- on terms we've discussed before?
Back in a bit -- I was posting something else.
New York Times on the Web Forums