New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(728 previous messages)
- 08:32pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#729
The technical questions set out in bold below may seem dry - and
to many people, such as Professor Postol, they seem fully answered
already. But the arguments involved with them haven't been fully set
out by the standards expected in a court of law - - or the standards
that are now possible on the internet, with some organization and
The arguments involved haven't been contested , with
technical questions that required decision decided by very widely
respected judges, for reasons that could themselves be judged.
The issues haven't been illustrated, numerically and pictorially,
to the standards expected in a court of law - with arguments that
would work for real juries.
But these questions could be answered to these high
standards, and answered beyond any reasonable doubt.
With the whole world (and reponsible politicians)
" How technically challenging are the missile
defense programs that have been set out in public (laser and
midcourse interception ) in terms of what is known, and what has
been achieved, in the open engineering and scientific literature?
Are the objectives for these specific kinds of systems compatible
with the laws of physics? To work, these systems have to do
specific things, and do these things together. Are the technical
objectives these systems have to meet reasonable in terms of known
laws of physics, and relevant experience in engineering?
" If function of these systems requires
breakthroughs, compared to previous open literature theory or
experience --- what are these breakthroughs? How do the results
needed compare quantitatively to results that have been achieved
in the open literature by engineers, applied physicists, or other
people who measure carefully? If breakthroughs are required, how
do they compare to test results that have been made available to
These missile defense programs need to be evaluated in a
reasonable tactical context, subject to the countermeasures that can
reasonably be expected and specified.
There would have to be "fights" about these questions --
contractors, and the military, would have to be forced to
contest these issues. - Or accept anwers on a clear nolo
contenre basis. If world leaders wanted to bring this force to
bear -- one way or another -- it could be done -- and pretty
These "dry technical answers" would make a practical
difference on larger questions, of concern to all citizens of the
The answers would be clear, and would exist in clear logical
contexts. Contexts that could be set out in "decision trees" such as
the decision making/tree, expert systems set out it MD634 lchic
When the technical answers are clear -- many clear
conclusions will follow about the rationality and good faith of
military-industrial patterns in which the whole world has an
Sometimes, to sort out a mess, you have to get SOME key relations
clarified. It would be possible to clarify these relations. That
done -- conditions would be in place for "breakthrough
negotiations" that are deeply in the interest of the United
States of America, and the rest of the world as well.
Many details about this have already been set out at length on
this thread - and discussed with gisterme , who, at the time,
gave every indication of having discussed these issues with her
- 08:37pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#730
Would leaders want answers like this? Enough, as a practical
matter, to ask for them, in the ways effective action would actually
I'm getting some reasons to hope that it may be possible.
People are people, and sometimes, to get a decision -- there has
to be a fight. A contest. We could have one. With umpires very
widely respected for the job at hand. It would take a little setting
up, but not too much.
What do you think, gisterme ?
- 10:23pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#731
Missile Defense Works! You can deny the existence of this fact
but it won't go away no matter how much you invoke Eisenhower,
Enron, or the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
You muddy the water with this pseudo intellectual claptrap and
fail to answer questions that might jeopardize your position. You
speak of force when logical persuasion is what is called for and I
suspect your ad hominem attacks will intensify re this post...but
hey isn't that what's this is all about. Your right and the rest of
the world is just stupid!
- 10:36pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#732
What questions have I failed to answer? As I recall, I've been
pretty open with you, about getting down to basics. For example,
several times, I've suggested that you just download the Coyle
Report, and we could discuss failings of the midcourse system (that
haven't been changed since the Coyle Report - in detail MD353
3/10/02 10:16pm - - - you're distracting from something that,
more and more, looks like a criminal conspiracy that makes Enron
Now, Mazza, I've been sparring with you long enough to know that
you'll distract any way you can. But the suggestion (which would,
after all, require some force to constrain the behavior in which you
specialize) would work very well.
. . . tonight, I'm going to get some rest.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
See the quick-edit
help for more information.